Analog vs Digital: Irrationality in Music Production
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 авг 2024
- / robertoblivion
/ discord
This video is my attempt to unpack the neurosis surrounding analog and digital. I'd love to hear your opinions and perspectives in the comments
• Minimalist Forest Dawl...
• Cyberspace O'Blivion -...
I've changed up the general production style for this video. Not sure if anyone will notice or care, but the previous style I was adhering to was very editing heavy and time intensive. Honestly, if you do notice or care, please let me know in the comments, I'm very curious as to how you're responding to my videos. I had hoped to be able to put videos out more regularly, once every 2 weeks, but the editing was somewhat overwhelming and was becoming a serious bottleneck, so I took a bit of a break to recharge. I won't be attempting to get back onto any regular sort of schedule and will just be putting out videos as they become ready. There's 3 videos currently in the works, 1 which has been in the works for a while, utilizing the previous production style. That ones nearing completion. Another one which is filmed and ready for editing, and the last one is being filmed as of the posting of this video.
Chapters:
00:00 - Intro
01:17 - Discovering Analog
05:20 - Analog in Music Production
09:04 - Understanding The Pro-Digital Perspective
12:27 - Moving Beyond This Dichotomy
14:28 - Platonic Idealism and the Muse
17:56 - Tools Aren't Magic. They're Tools 
Видеоклипы
With analogue vs digital, there's really no actual competition, you just use both together as nature intended. Choose both!
Digital and analog are _different,_ not better or worse. They do some things well and others poorly. I appreciate both for what they're worth.
Exactly. Also, from signal processing and synthesis perspective, analogue synthesis is a TINY portion of audio signal synthesis. It simply cannot do many synthesis methods that lead to eminently different sonic worlds. Analogue granular synthesis? Analogue deterministic (!) and reproducible (!) multi-operator FM synthesis? Analogue dynamic spectral additive synthesis? List can go on. They are physically impossible in practice or by definition impossible due to their nature. Excluding them is like telling a painter that he can only use shades of diluted ultramarine. It is absolutely farcical that in 2023 some still see analogue as something "against" all other synthesis methods or something "exclusively" used instead of all other synthesis methods. The creative insecurity that goes into this level of fetishism is highly relevant from a cognitive psychology perspective - and simply laughable. Yes, it just is. Yet, the fact that it gets so much bandwidth even in 2023 despite the objective facts of state of the art signal processing methods shows how emotional and irrational some can still be. The self-contradicting nature of "analogue purism" or "digital purism" is farcical, the only thing scoring more points in the digital camp is how many signal synthesis methods the latter can cover when compared with any and all analogue methods.
@@LeventeZoneThis is very well written and I agree completely. Analog subtractive synthesis is amazing, but it's also limited.
they’ll record and mix all on analog and then be like “LISTEN TO IT ON SPOTIFY”
I'm not sure about the other artists, but Ultravox were using digital synths (like the PPG Wave) as early as 1980/81, so it probably wasn't digital that was the problem 🙂It's funny when I hear people talking about wanting to make music with tape and exclusively hardware synths and outboard. Those of us who went through the transition of analogue to digital have the same bewildered reaction that your mentor did - why on earth would you want to do that? The workflow with tape sucked in so many ways and it was incredibly expensive to do it at any kind of professional level. The gulf between what you could achieve in a home studio vs a pro facility in terms of the gear alone was enormous. The DAW democratised music production in a way that few things have.
It's pretty simple, people have preferences.
Exactly. I was so happy to get my first DAW after faffing with 4-track tape for almost 10 years.
I must agree. I have both analog and digital synthesizers and a daw with many plugins. I see people who want to use an entire analog system the same as that guy on PBS who uses only old hand tools for woodworking. 😃
To be fair, Wavetable tends to sound more "analogue" than other digital engines (i.e FM) since its basically the same structure as a subtractive synth with a more complex sampled waveform.
Subtractive is the usual way analogue synths work, though theres exceptions. I.e E-Organs tend to be additive.
@@eightcoins4401 agree with all that. The PPG even had analogue filters. My ESQ-1 sounds awesome and that thing is digital. Organs tend to use additive, agreed, and the old Synclavier and Kawai K5 were additive (I think the Sync also had FM). I think the issue people had with digital was FM and to be honest it could be a bit sterile. I've never really been a fan of it. Wavetable, additive and sampling+synthesis though, bring it on.
I want to see a scientifically valid blind test of whether the human ear can even discern a difference between analog and digital sounds.
It can't. That's how the CD standard (44.1 kHz - 16-bit) was developed. Our ears are limited and our brains are imprecise.
Why?
@marvinjones4415 When you convert analog sound to digital there are two parameters that impact how closely the digital representation represents the original sound, resolution and sample rate. As these parameters approach infinity the difference between the digital representation and the original sound approaches zero.
Both the speakers and your ears are acoustic devices, which are limited and very slow compared to the sample rate used in CD's. And they are not precise enough to discern the extremely small error from not having an infinite resolution.
In terms of pure reproduction quality. Nothing beats digital. You can reproduce pretty much all that an analog format does to a sound using digital modeling. In all sensible ways, digital can do it all.
What analog workflows can introduce is the randomness. Randomness in terms of noise, fluctuations, environmental effects on mediums and circuitry. You can digitally model that beyond distinguishability, but for a lot of people, it's easier to just capture it as it happens. And then there's the brain processing while doing the recordings that differ, figuring out what algorithms and methods that make a digital processor produce a desired sound is a bit different from what you need to consider when coaxing control voltages, springs and magnetic tapes, and whatever you need to do the same thing.
In the end, for the listener, the only thing that should matter is the sound you hear. Anything beyond that is placebo.
Can you make a VST that replicates an ARP 2600? Probably. The only thing you can't replicate is the physicalities of moving those specific knobs and connecting patch cables, putting pins in the matrices and all that. But again. For the end users. The consumers. The listeners of the final files/tapes/discs/whatever. It is irrelevant how the soundwaves were recorded beyond placebo.
I'm pro pristine digital, but I believe it can be discerned. At least a trained ear can. I've had someone record my music to S-VHS and the sound profile is always different. The quality of S-VHS closely approaches analog reel-to-reel tape, and both color the sound, particularly causing the high frequencies to taper off with some generational loss. There can be EQ differences in the mids, and saturation can affect the transients.
Even just the analog audio coming off a wire isn't lossless; it still can color the sound and add significant noise.
The circuits of analog synths themselves are hard to emulate accurately.
There are analog-modelling plugins that allow you do simulate an analog signal path in a purely digital environment, and in this context, sure, it's going to be much harder to tell a difference.
I like the video Starsky Carr did where he put up classic analog and various digital synths against each other.
A bunch of people tried to figure out which was which and zero got it right. In the monosynth section I was certain I knew which was the Minimoog, but it turned out that one was the Hydrasynth. Today I have both a Moog and a Hydrasynth on my stand.
You went in depth and was really thorough. The way you laid out your life’s narrative was entertaining. The discussion’s subject is relevant and you brought your sensibility to it, not just the usual few talking points.
This is a good video made with a lot of effort, I think putting more effort in the thumbnail and the first few seconds would unlock a new level for you on RUclips.
I will dig trough your other videos now.
Thank you! ☺
Yeah, I've only recently started putting serious thought towards titles, thumbnails and intro's. Will be putting more effort into those aspects of my videos going forward.
An important point for me is the physical aspect of interacting with a piece of hardware versus a plug-in, being able to turn a filter knob or change an envelope using sliders allows much more creativity than clicking around a VST interface. But if I was to compare the digitally produced 'virtual analog' sound from say the Yamaha Reface CS with its analog equivalent, I honestly can't tell the difference.
Agreed, the discussion about analog vs digital is strange in synth land. They are both different instruments. The MS-20 is different from the 2600, the 2600 is a different instrument then the computer simulation of the 2600.
What people miss here is that the biggest difference between digital and analog is workflow and mindset. It’s not a “blind A/B” situation anymore because many digital processors have gotten good enough to blur those lines. The issue with digital is its very strengths: infinite reproducibility, infinite options immediately available: option paralysis is real. Nothing feels “special” when it’s no longer of the moment. Backup that synth track and then try every other preset/soft synth. My solution to this is a high commitment approach to recording when I’m writing/producing. I print stuff constantly. I keep backups of the whole project along the way but I almost never open them because it’s prohibitive enough to discourage doing it. I still think a lot of analog saturation effects, particularly the subtle ones, have a kind of magic that digital hasn’t fully hit yet. If you’ve got the money hybrid is probably the best way to go
The difference is in purpose, and transformation of the signal. Nothing else is inherent or made of "different stuff".
Every bit needs a physical mosfet transistor gate in order to create a discrete register; one that is then USED as a reconstruction of soundwaves.
A bucket-brigade delay (analog) chip is essentially upside-down tech: behaving like digital flash-ROM by using 1000s of "batteries" (capacitors) to temporarily "save" a discrete set of signal registers ...plus a ton of noise.
In analog EM noise is the constant issue, along with the various non-linearities. Bit-depth does nothing to increase detail; only your noise floor and consequently, Dynamic Range (headroom vs noise-floor).
(I'm 1000% done with the Analog vs Digital discussion.)
The Platonic Idealism (and Muse) bit was interesting tho! I feel the same when making (good) music. It's as if I'm playing something that is already there and right now wants to be heard. Didn't know that this theory of thought was called 'The Platonic ideal'.
Nice.
I've become increasingly interested in going full analog hardware setup, not because I think it sounds better or "warmer" (which I hear a lot from analog fans) but because I genuinely think it will force me to think and compose differently. It's the same argument that I have with people regarding collecting vinyl. I think a lot of the supposed sonic benefits of vinyl are straight snake oil, but to me, it's nice to be forced to sit and enjoy an album differently as part of a ritual that doesn't involve the ADHD-inducing screen. Everything you said in this video resonated with me so much, fantastic video. "Mechanically elaborate but inherently limited" is a brilliant piece of writing, my friend. A pleasure to have found your channel!
Thanks 😊 (Low-key quite a fan of your channel)
@@RobertOBlivion I just watched the rest of your videos and I'm definitely a fan of yours, glad to have met you!
@@RobertOBlivion Oh, and by the way, I'm working on a comic workflow video that talks about the hybrid analog digital setup we use. Most of the sentiments you express in this video (including romanticizing analog because you choose to use it vs. are forced to) is very much a part of comic creation when it comes to using a bottle of ink, for example. We do hand inking and digital coloring, which I would say is the comic equivalent of generating sounds via analog synthesis and then recording them in a DAW
It's interesting how this dichotomy arises across so many mediums. Keen to see your video on this
Really great video, nice to see the topic explored so honestly & comprehensively beyond the meme. Hard subbed and looking forward to more of these
Wow, finding your channel this afternoon was quite a treat! Very nice reflection that I’m sure all of us who make electronic music have had at some point.
Took a long break from music and just getting back into it and I’m finding that anything tactile (whether it’s analog or digital) is just infinitely more inspiring and fun than clicking a mouse.
I’m in the market for a polysynth and part of me is like “well, I’ve got a DAW and can make/use any digital polysynth I like, so if I’m gonna buy something it should be analog”
Still weighing how important that actually is, but definitely cool to find this vid while I’ve been poring over geartube reviews the past week lol.
Great break down, ive gone back and forth about Anolog Vrs Digital production, i still prefer the hands on. However I think we are in golden age of Digital / Analog hardware. Just to add, your melodies are great on your bandcamp ! Looking forward to the next album.
Thank you! Hoping to put out the next album in a few months time
I listened to this at the end of my best day of jamming on my modular ever. I'm only getting started but I feel so much more free than in a daw, paradoxically because of the restrictions. I'm not an audiophile in any way, so the claims of digital sounding worse has always been theoretical to me. It's about workflow, limitations, and expectations.
Work with a daw and endless plugins if you know what you want and just need the tools to create that. I'm not that kind of person, I want to play.
I have also realized its very easy to get losti n the options in a daw. I got like 100 freeware vsts, of which i only use mabye 3.
I think maybe the reason people have such fondness for analog gear is due to most of it being very hands-on? To me, specifically, that encourages musicality. I can open a blank project in a DAW and get absolutely no ideas for music, but if I'm hanging out at my friend's house playing with an MS-20 and a bunch of guitar pedals, that setup encourages the sort of happy accidents that create something very musical. Maybe the problem's the front end, not the back end?
@@imlxh7126 yes! Hardware > daw.
That's not the analog-digital issues tho. Hardware can have software. I don't really care as long as I don't have to do menu diving.
I love this type of content do. Freaking awesome man keep it up 🙌🏾🙌🏾
Thanks Xammai!
The conclusion that I've come to is that it's all about workflow. Analog workflow is different than digital/DAW so the music I make with each sounds different. With analog it's more about seeing what the hardware can do. With digital, it's about what I can do.
When all said is done, there is no such thing as „digital sound“. Digital is an intermin storage medium, or whatever else you want to call it. But by the time it reaches your ears, any sound will be analogue.
Most discussions online speak of analog vs digital. We use a hybrid system. Both analog and digital at tracking, mixing, summing, mastering.
great video! i especially enjoyed the chapter on platonic idealism and the muse :)
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I use both, and what I have found is the instrument I select works through me and changes the result profoundly. My whole mental context changes when I'm working with large heavy knobs on my Moog compared to kit bashing together all kinds of modulators on a digital synth in my DAW. So it isnt so much the sound but the entire headspace and context that changes, and that gets reflected in the end product. Not for better or worse, but you can definitely hear it. Anyway, very enjoyable to hear your thoughts and feelings on the matter. Thanks and have a good day.
I also tend to prefer hardware just for it being easier to navigate and fiddle with.
Its really janky to set these with a mouse.
Though I contemplate a midi controller so I get actual knobs for vsts.
Fantastic take! Recording acoustic instruments is the same way as analog synths - no midi quantization and punch-ins are iffy. Easier just to re-do the take! Nowadays we're spoiled with external instrument tracks where you can record the midi and feed it back to your analog synth while playing with the knobs haha
I am not idealogically wedded to one type of synthesis being better than the other. For me it is whatever sounds the most fitting for the track. I wouldn't want to go back to recording my tracks on a four track cassette like I did in the 80s and early 90s, as the hiss becomes very noticeable when bouncing down and used to drive me nuts. I can't say that the limitations of four track are preferable to a digital DAW with its greater possibilities for the home recordist, because for me they are not. I would be interested to hear how a track I have finished on my DAW would sound when bounced to my Akai GX-4000D reel to reel, when I get round to servicing it. The debate for me is vintage analogue vs modern analogue. Personally, I am more inclined to go for modern as vintage requires a long term commitment to maintaining it and associated costs. My first set up was a Casio CZ-1000, SK-1, Roland SH-101, MC-202, TR-606 and Sequential Pro-One, so I've always had a mixture of analogue and digital and it feels perfectly normal to blend the two. Otherwise I'm a bit bored with the analogue vs digital. mac vs PC arguments. I will continue with both working in harmony.
I think in some ways that 80s shift might have had more to do with the move from monosynths to polyphony. Early 80s synth bands had to arpeggiate their chords because of monophony. Then they'd get a polyphonic keyboard and suddenly they could just play the chords. The harmonic effect was the same, but that rhythmic movement and busyness we liked, was now gone.
I think its partially also just that the prime of those artists ended by then. Its hard to have consistently good output for only one decade, even more so for multiple.
@@eightcoins4401 I agree for specific artists, they will eventually fall off anyway. Or the band breaks up.
But I do think the shift from mono to poly instruments IS noticeable in the early 80s. It changes the feel of a lot of synth music.
@@eightcoins4401 New electronic artists in this era sounded just as lame as the 70s masters did.
Depeche Mode's first album is a prime example. Not a chord on it, and - given their musical limitations - all the better for it.
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx Agreed
Nice treatuse. Welcome to the 21st C. 👍 😊 I'm with David.
😁
this is my first time seeing any of your stuff, but I can confidently say there's nothing wrong with your approach to editing/video production! The simplicity is human and refreshing.
Great nuanced take on the divide between analog and digital! As someone who can't really afford analog synths I've defaulted to using VSTs. While I have been able to achieve a lot of the sounds reminiscent of the 70s/80s synthpop and post punk records I love, there still seems to be something missing - workflow.
The act of using a sequencer or having a filter knob right in front of your face at all times are things that will inevitably lead to different results. Sure I could automate stuff, but there seems to be a difference between thinking "I should draw X Y & Z in" vs just grabbing stuff and tweaking the arrangement in real time. Also the forethought and prep that needs to go into creating a part before recording will play a key role as you mentioned.
Anyway, looking to start off with some volcas as a gateway drug and see where things go from there lol
POV: How to compress audio that far, that you can hear background noise during the whole video.
The tape hiss in this video is really distracting and irritating, so I guess it kinda fits with content and presentation.
I am with you on most every point you make. While we could argue endlessly about whether one can hear the difference between sounds made by analog vs digital sources, it is self-evident that working with different tools has definitely lead artists to make very different sounding results.
I think you’re dead-on with the concept that the restraints and limitations matter. They sure help me.
I digitally record, process and mix almost exclusively analog instruments. And it works whenever the song is moving me.
Earned my sub, great vid
Plugins have come a long way since the early 2000s
Recently released vst instrument “Mariana” from Moog music, which isn’t a plugin version of a hardware synth but a unique original instrument really blew my mind
It took time for me to become willing and able to use digital tools but now that I do, they’re just too useful, albeit generally less inspiring.
So having actual gear is still a necessary part of the process as each piece of gear is it’s own instrument that will drive inspiration in its own specific way.
Not gonna get too deep into that but if you want we could do a talk about it
Thanks! ☺
Yeah, finding that balance between utility and inspiration is a very important aspect of this topic
So, I was working in a studio as recording assistant during the nineties, lots of hours with the tape - your mentor, of course, has embraced digital as we all did back then. I think you have put yourself through a tedious process needlessly, that's all I've gotta say - although thanks for sharing. Digital = bad is just not true, and in the end, you were consuming digital copies of all that music. Your perception of what true analogue was formed by listening to the music from digital media (ipod or computer you say - I recon using limewire you were downloading LOSSY mp3s). Just to be clear, I adore analogue synths, tape and processors. my studio is full of outboard gear , some budget, some a bit on a high end. same for synths - Prophet 10, OB6, Jupiter 6, Moogs, etc etc. But I also love Super 6, and 3rd wave, and PPG, and DX7, Wavestation, JV1080 and many other digital synths that are absolutely boss. I get AD wars, but from my perspective, there is no winner.
I started in 2001 with Reason and VSTs and wanted a BCR2000 to make controls tangible and automate everything. Then computer updates/upgrades started making some VSTs obsolete, then whole projects. I took a break for a couple of years and decided to go the hardware route. I still fire up those tools and get going and can plug them and pair them in an infinite number of ways, then record to a DAW.
Hardware = independence from the System.
7:40 - Exactly. Analogue nostalgia is only possible in an oversaturated, wealthy, prosperous environment. It is a luxury commodity that wastes valuable resources such as time. Nice work if you can get it, but don't count on the demand for it being sustainable.
It is actually the decline of civilization that makes the past so compelling now. Look at how the hauntological has permeated everything aesthetically.
Very nice sir! Very nice indeed
Thanks ☺
Nice another video. Hope this channel grows
Thanks!
Digital is the way to go, handsfree down, nothing comes even close!🎉🎉🎉
You are a blessing! Go for it! 🎹🔥
Thank you, I will! 😊
A lot of what you say makes sense, but many things said are not factual or misleading. Just because someone created every possible melodic combination using 12 tet does not mean there is a a finite number of combinations. It is very obviously infinite. You are coming from a very western centric point of view and disregarding so much or the worlds music. Also, I find it quite weird that you do not mention MIDI when you are talking about having to "re-record and entire track". MIDI has existed for close to 40 years and is an amazing way to control analog hardware, digitally. Also, You do not go into any specific what so ever. Like the non-linearity of analog feedback networks happening at light speed. That cannot be replicated digitally. At least not for a very very long time. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your point of view, I just feel like it is kind of off the mark in some spots. It almost feels like you are apologizing to your mentor.
I appreciate and agree with your idea that the difference between analog and digital is something to not be overly concerned with as ones focus should be on making music, not necessarily the mode of the tools you choose. The tools that inspire you and the tools that are accessible to you are what matter most. Point being, digital is better at some things and analog at others and there is a ton of crossover. Spending an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out all of those differences is wasteful. Make music, discover the differences as you grow.
I 100% agree with you
I still agree with the analog purists. Yes, analog is still better, for all of the reasons we've heard a thousand times over. But too many people in the analog camp have a dated opinion of digital, which has come a _long_ way in the last 20 years. Obviously, a real Prophet 5 still sounds better than even the best Prophet emulation, but you clearly can't just write off Softube's Model 80 as "cold and lifeless". It's shockingly close. And circuit-level analog modeling is only going to get better. Yes, analog is still better, and I believe that analog will still be around 20 years from now for the same reasons that the Fender Stratocaster is still around. But digital _is_ inevitably going to catch up.
17:03 - great stuff! Love that line...
Regarding the estimated limit of possibilities it's funny when you consider the beliefs of modular synth geeks: Some of them argue that this is the very reason musicians have to dive into modular in order to find new SOUND instead of melodies. But honestly, I doubt consumers will ever care about to which degree and through what number of modules a saw wave gets folded or what kind of filter is applied to this or that kind of noise.
I feel like you will understand the rules I set for myself In my current one man band project. I have a rule that loops, tracks or automation is not allowed. That way the performance stays more dynamic, skilled, and engaging. I play keyboard, octave mandolin, drums, and sing all at the same time.
I call myself a recovering analog purist. I started making electronic music in the late 1980s and by the mid 1990s was making a living buying, modding, and selling analog synths. In the 90s, some of the early virtual analog stuff was a big turn off and justified my opinions in my mind. I took a long break and came back to electronic music production and was really shocked by the quality of digital emulations of analog synths. I now use a hybrid set up but it’s 80-90% digital, but I have no attachments to any analog stuff and find myself reaching for analog gear less and less and producing more music than ever.
chosing instruments, techniques, methods of any kind is to find what you can afford and inspires you the most. thats it. I find more joy digging into late 80s digital and hybrid synths than in regular analog poly synths. analog is so limited that most of them sound more or less the same to me. so I have only one analogue poly.
I enjoy both analog and digital sounds. They complement each other very well. For those who claim that analog sound emulations are almost identical to real machines, they are somewhat correct. However, the significant difference lies in the working ergonomics - it's much more intuitive and faster than working with a mouse and keyboard
I think modern albums from Kraftwerk are less interesting than older ones because the same happens with a lot of artists losing a bit of that initial spark through the years, but not because of a tool they used. A synthesizer is just a musical instrument, not some kind of magical thing that suddenly makes you a better musician or worse. There are tons of people with all analog super expensive equipment and their music is terribly boring, something just a loop or something that doesn't go anywhere, and on the other side, you have musicians working only with VST and making amazing enjoyable music. Is true that analog is more easy to experiment with and digital is harder and too big for experiments, but the most important part is what kind of instrument inspires you to do the music that you have on your brain. I'm from a different generation, I'm a generation X and I grew up in the 80s with the transition from the analog world to the digital and I love both worlds. I'm capable of having fun with a hardware sequencer and working with Cubase and I usually use both, and I love working with the Juno 106 as much as with the DX7, but making a nice sound with the DX7 of course takes much longer than with the 106. When I think about writing some music, usually I decide what kind of sound I want and then I decide the instrument I want to play, like when you go for a run or to have a coffee and you have to choose the best clothing for that. In the end, we can't blame the tools because our creativity is not the same as before. Every artist's album is a different story and part of their evolution as artists. About recording and mixing, analog recording is something really painful and I can confirm that dealing with noise and problems like that, was so frustrating, especially if you have a limited budget producing your own music from beginning to end.
Today we are so lucky to have so many options available but our poor creativity is not because of the digital synths, but for all the distractions we have in our daily life. Thanks for the video!
One central aspect that might sound philosophical is the reversal of the artist - instrument relationship. If we look at the loudest voices going on and on about the type of gear they use (and/or what everybody else should or must be using): they are essentially defining themselves by the tools they use. This is fundamentally flawed. If we look at the greatest names: Klaus Schulze announced, infamously, the "death of analogue" - then did a 180 degrees turn, admitting that it was misguided as it completely missed the core aspect. Vangelis, famously, did not make any distinction between what kind of instruments he used: acoustic, electronic (and within that, analogue or digital) - he concentrated on the sound, not HOW it was made. Sure, both disliked e.g. programming aspects that broke spontaneity in their famously improvisation-based creative process.
For me, personally, after too many years spent in audio processing and synthesis, both commercially in day job and as a hobby supporting my musical activities, the use of antiquated criteria is also a hugely nonsensical aspect. For example, some of the arguments against virtual analogue no longer hold... because processing power, DSP internal numerical representation and maths precision that comes with it, etc. have vastly evolved and even just 10 years ago it was inconceivable to produce such accurate physical modelling-based real time synthesis as we can do now.
The entire analogue vs. digital polemic is frankly tiring and, in the 2020s, simply ludicrous on many levels. One can understand the mental (it is largely psychological, therefore irrational) process that makes some still get terribly heated and emanate (logically, technically, philosophically / semantically) deeply flawed 'arguments' that eliminate one or the other technology, but that does not mean that the process is valid.
If we look at any and all great names, they have one thing in common: they embrace any and all technology and use the right tools for the right task. Those who are shouting at 120dB volume about 'only digital' or 'only analogue' seem to always have one thing in common: they try to justify their obvious creative shortcomings by vacuous arguments about the tools. Again, totally turning upside down the artists - tool relationship.
Very insightful comment. Underlying this discussion is a framing that places tools before artists, ignoring the nuanced relationship between artists and their tools and ignoring that tools are an extension of the human/artist. I suppose this will only get worse with generative ai as the myth is growing stronger that tools are a defining aspect of creativity.
I strongly agree that overly focusing on the tools above the music only serves to distract from the music and creativity, and primarily stems from a place of creative insecurity
@@RobertOBlivion Thank you, in many ways (as annoying it is to some) I keep making references to what happened in photography. The exact same fetishism and reversal of roles occurred, but well before electronic music / synths discussions. Early days of digital darkroom, Photoshop, etc.: vast camps of vastly angry people, who were totally missing the point, were (and some still are) up in arms about "true" photography... Even when the magical characteristics of certain film stock were proven to be non-magical and exactly reproducible via plugins emulating the physical properties of those films, such polemic still exists. And then, as you mentioned, comes AI. So we see the same misguided mythology, fear, irrational self-defining and role reversal arguments all over again, but at a different level and in a different area. Many like to think they are making unique points in a unique field of technology, but... we have all been there before :)... Time will cure everything :) and the initial overshoots of the system (that can last decades, unfortunately) will die down and the loud irrational / fetishist voices become the oddity not the norm. One hopes...
@@LeventeZone The medium is the message
@@nanocyde_artist Indeed, medium, content, method gets mixed up, with things swapping places. Same thing happened years and years ago with digital photography and digital darkroom. Time cures everything...
I'm thinking about getting a analog tube preamp from the 1950s for my drums and synths for that analog warm sound
What I like about the "analog mindset and workflow", is having things to do ONE thing, exactly what you need.
(hmmmm, maybe not always, so because of that the digital workflow can be better).
I dare to suggest another hypothesis for the change in the early 80s'. Two major sound ways of working were based on 'unnatural' phenomena, namely the gated reverb and FM-synthesis. One group of listeners were impressed by the drums and pleasantly surprised by the novelty and 'clarity' of FM, the other half, I dar to say with a more musical and sensitive ear, was appalled. It does turn that FM is quickly tiring (by its unnatural nature) but 'analog' keeps it appeal. Because digital facilitated these development, it seems its the digital, but its not. The one things come with the other.
FM isn’t always unnatural. In fact, many of the sounds produced by FM are closer to things you’d find in nature (tines, bells, strings) than analog subtractive synthesis produces (saw waves, filtered square waves).
the DX7 is a pain to program so everyone just used the garbage presets
I found the concept of analog methods influencing the workflow interesting and insightful. One of the problems with using digital synthesis is that it opened up just too many possibilities and I suspect your favourite bands just became overwhelmed by these possibilities and lost their "creative path" as a result.
What I found most interesting was your classification that digital is "just information". The reality is that analog is "just information" too - It's purely aesthetic - very much akin to the age-old argument that a valve amplifier is "superior" to a transistor based one. It isn't. It's just a preference.
At the same time, in other scenes people easily adjusted to digital synths.
I think its more so an issue of alot of the older artists being very accustomed to getting the most ouf of gear with really limited options, while artists that came later already used synths with lots of modulation options.
Alot of artists that arrived on the scene only by the mid 80s easily transitioned to DX7s and Waldorf Microwaves (basically an extended PPG Wave) after starting on subtractive analogue synths with more modulation like a Pro One, EDP Wasp or SH-101.
People neglect that we as human beings are tactile creatures, as are most mammals. The concept of, "warmth" and. "feeling" in audio is inherently linked to our seeking contact and connection with things. We are made of, "wires" and the signals that flow through them as we are joined together organically. What we appreciate reflects our organic function. Analog will always be a thing, vinyl and other formats will always be with us because they FEEL better.
even as the vast majority of music is mastered digitally? there are very few albums made with the true analog path. at some point, it becomes one’s and zero’s
Pretty much 99% of vinyl and cassette has gotten mastered digitally by 1987 funnily enough.
Before that some artists already fully swore on digital.
Alot of digital tools instantly became default on the professional level because they were simply more convenient than older analogue gear.
DACs quickly took the place of Reel to Reel due to insane difference in costs.
Funnily enough, Dave Oglive, Skinny Puppy's producer got interviewed on exactly this in ca 1988. He got a new digital compressor iirc, and blind tested it with everyone in the studio compared to the analogue tape compressor. Everyone thought the digital one sounded "warmer"
For synths, a big Issue i personally have with vsts is that to actually use them properly, you need to buy a midi controller with encoders on top. Its why I usually stick ot hardware synths. All the UI is already right there on purchase and tangible. Tuning encoders with mouse is just no fun.
Alot of the hate for va hardware synths comes from the fact they used to be way worse when they first came up in the 80s, synth romplers like the Kawais come to mind.
I love my Roland TR-6s, which is vas of al the old kids., They replicated all of the actual circuit behaviour on the 606, 808 and 909.
For me digital in general is a blessing, im just a hobby musician, its the only way i can record anything close to professional sounding. DAW liscenses cost way less than a studio.
Honestly, in the end it all comes down to preference and what works best for you.
Realising that without a daw I just wouldn't be able to make the kind of music I can make was very sobering. Being able to produce to a professional standard without a studio makes this arguably the best time to be alive as a recording musician
@@RobertOBlivion I agree, its been a steady upwards slope since the late 80s considering acessibility of music production. All starting with the first Trackers for Atari ST.
Does limitation create innovation?
Good for you ❤
Interesting and thoughtful video.. 👍😃I think a Cassette Only record label would be great and sold through Online/Mail-Order I'll seek out your music to listen to. I think Instrumental analog electronica should be explored more too.
Thanks! Yeah I suspect there's an audience for cassette releases
I got Volca Sample which let me to discover something called single cycle waveforms / synthesis. Which led me to rabbit hole of experimenting with this technique and actually buying Kawai K1 (an 1989 digital synth based on it).
The good thing for me about this analog craze is that those early digital synths (which has a lot of character too) are pretty cheap today. Also there is whole world of some early digital synths which used some analogue components and thus have very characteristic sound with best of both world (various square wave keyboards and early pcm synths form Yamaha).
I also wanted to try using actual analog four track recorder which I had chance to do. It was fun but there were some malfuctions and other glitches and digital multitrack recording seems to be much more reliable for me. I am using mostly digital stuff but I like to throw some analog magic here and there.
Every single rompler actually implements this funnily enough.
Just sadly most dont let you edit the sound in any way.
The Kawais were actually quite popular in industrial since the sampled waves could do better strings than FM or analogue synths.
I kinda wish their approach of a rompler where you can edit the sound didnt die out.
I've been dabbling into photography myself... and there's this analog vs digital thing going on too. And you know? I think it all boils down to the same. A good photo is a good photo no matter the medium. And in the end it all ends up digitized to show it off most of the time.
What I get is the idea of "I want to be out of «the box»" and that box is the computer. Most of the people that have day jobs have the screen in front and when you go to do your hobby you want to escape that. I know that's my case too, I spend a LOT of time in front of a screen and a keyboard, and while I enjoy it, and it is super convenient, I want to be able to do things out of «the box». Some other people even loathe «the box».
So... if your JOB is photography, like a journalist for example, digital is SO much more convenient most of the time, same as a recording artist or a music producer or a sound engineer that **need to get the job done**. So yeah, when your next plate of food is on the line, you need to make it easier for you.
But if photography or music is your hobby, or a side hustle where your means of living aren't on the line, you might want to inconvenience yourself just to boost creativity or because you want to enjoy a process «out of the box» for that and switch context (which is a very psychological thing to do on the other hand). Photographer wanting to slow the process of taking a picture and get distance, think through the next click of the camera... or a musician wanting to restrict what they can do on their setup to be able to create differently.
"I compose almost exclusively inside of a door"
I think you may be ready for a modular synthesizer...
New sub. This was entertaining af. Last year, I bought 4 analogue synths and 2 sequencers. In the last couple of years I have bought about 30 guitar pedals, 4 guitars, a groove box, 2 amplifiers and all the other stuff needed to join it all together. I use ableton live, GGDrum, vcv rack, amplitude. I love all of it. I am older so I have no purpose for how I use the gear but I love it. When I am using it I feel inspired and free. Use whatever gear brings joy. Be creative and love the process, whatever it is.
As civilization decays, retrofuturism, nostalgia, and hauntology as aesthetic tools are powerful both politically and musically.
Why is there constant white noise in the background?
That's the wind. Turns out filming in a forest wasn't the best choice for audio quality 🤷♂️🐸
A talented musician can find something musically useful and appropriate out of any quality of instrument. To say music became "bad" when a certain technology appeared is illogical as music is such a personal subjective experience. Those famous synth artists were experimenting with new synths and I am sure those digital synths sounded good to them!
Nobody was freaking out about Analog vs Digital until it became a thing on the internetz, then getting all the info wrong. People now confuse all hardware as analog. I remember years ago seeing a post where someone wondered how did they get all those crazy sounds in the 90s if it was all analog not realizing a lot of that hardware was digital.
In the end, ask yourself what kind of music you want to do and what path you want to take to get there. Some days I start in Reason and might end up in my MPC and that might go into my iPad and back to the MPC. It's all about finding what works for you and brings joy to the process. No tools should be considered off limits.
The other side of that is taking time to focus on one piece of gear, learning every aspect of it and squeezing as much out of it as possible.
Everyones an expert these days, and always spewing facts. And that’s a fact 😏
@@ElectroPanPipes 🤪
They also got the decade entirely wrong. Lots of artists already transitioned to digital by the 80s. The DX7 and PPG Wave are all over lots of music from that decade.
Though I think like you kind of imply, the issue with modern digital workflow is more that you got too many cheap options to get distracted by then having to focus on the one synth you can afford.
I personally always suspected the "Analogue Warmth" claim was astroturfed by old analogue synthe manfucturers when digital ended up being more affordable to the average consumer than analogue in the early 80s though.
Apprentce works, Tradesmen works with hands, craftsmen works with hands and head
Artisan works with hands, head and heart... (the work is the constant)
I'd like to note about the finite variation of music. It is false. Just choosing different instrumentation to one single piece of music creates in itself almost infinite variation, and playing around with sounds and instrumentation with the same note sequences can make it sound like an entirely different piece of music, even if it technically isn't, just think of every time you heard a cover version that is seemingly different enough to shift you to accept it to be a new piece of work. The very choice of the sound itself is just as much an artform as arranging the notes in a pleasing order, choosing the right accords and so on. So take each of those 68 billion variations of music and add sound variation to it you probably reach infinity.
I think the problem with any analogy like that is also that it only looks at melody/chord progressions.
Sound design alone adds lots of more variety to the equation already on the same instrument.
Prepared piano playing the same notes is gonna sound different from a normal piano.
This especially becomes visible with synths.
Its gonna be very unlikely its the same exact patch playing the same exact notes.
Then additionally its also very rare to use synths dry and not route them through lots of fx.
Yeah, this is _so_ much faster....
Kind of a bummer to think there is a generation that grew up thinking that music via iPod is the way music should sound. I’ve always strongly felt that the iPods itself sounded horrible and everything played back through them was ruined. This isn’t an analog or digital opinion, or a format opinion, I think the specific DA implementation on those devices was awful and ruined a generation of music(along with the 00’s loudness wars mastering).
I think vinyl can sound great, but I also think a good digital recording played through a good DAC can sound great. I will also say that 2002 “digital” and 2024 “digital” are wildly different things. A 100% software vst recording sounded vastly inferior to a hardware recording back then, and in the last two decades the gap has closed significantly.
Id argue the late 90s actually were worse than the early 2000s considering loudness war mastering.
The worst sounding CDs I own a are 1997 Iron Maiden Remasters.
There are tones that I can not recreate on vsts. It's bs that they sound the same I've tried really hard to make patches on vst to replace analog synths so I can sell them but cut and dry they both sound different and do better at different things. That said some analog synths are awful and don't really show the side of analog that is good
I like both digital and analog synths. I don’t care which it is as long as like the sound and the user interface.
Interesting and romantic perspective ...
I find it interesting that people who grew up in the iPod era or streaming discover physical media and somehow like it.
I was born in the mid 1970s and therefor grew up with CDs, tapes and vinyl but once I could load all the music to the computer and not having to go through all the time consuming stuff like recording in real time I could never go back again to those. But that does not mean I don’t think about what I am listening too, and I am still an album listener, maybe due to socialization.
I think for alot of people its that physical formats are actually tangible unlike mp3s and streaming.
You feel more like you actually own something than with mp3s.
I already got like 400gb of mp3s but want to own the same catalogue of music on cd or vinyl some day.
@@eightcoins4401 owning factor surely plays a role, I bought several CDs which I exactly put into the computer once to rip them and then listen to it.
I still love the older CDs from 80s and 90s where you got a nice booklet with lyrics or pictures and background information. This booklet is also part of why I prefer CD to vinyl.
Inspiring
People have been literally saying this on forums for the last 15 years.. So yeah.. good you realized! Ha ha god effort on the video though indeed.
I still love an analog comp and eq on the mixbuss.
put a high cut on the sound my dude
Analog in your story means making more deliberate decisions and choices because they require more work and time, you have to be and are aware of its consequences, the trial and error ia not as cheap, you can't afford to apply every random guess that might be a happy accident (and doesn't most modern music leave the same lasting impression as a Bob Ross painting, fun to make, but will it ever end up in a museum, will million of people recognize it, will it have an iconic status?). Also, making analog music requires many more body parts and by that muscles, not as much as playing an instrument like bass, guitar or a piano, but far more than just your pointer finger, and a tiny wiggle in the wrist (are there activities in live that involve less muscles?). How much of your body is involved? And isn't the body the door to your deeper emotions? Digit means finger. Can we, do we want to live by one finger alone?
Thanks!
I believe high quality analog gear still sounds better than plugins, and that's why top professionals still use analog gear. However software plugins are improving and are probably getting close to the analog sound. Maybe mostly for mastering engineers but for example analog summing may still be something the top mixing engineers use. That's different than just putting saturation plugins on the tracks and on the master bus, because then the actual summing is still digital and linear.
this seems like a video that needs a comment letting people who look at the price of a CS80 and get sad know that a hydrasynth deluxe and a deckards dream from black corp are less than a tenth the price and can do much more and if you got an an extra 5k their expander mk2 looks delicious. still aint cheap but, but its not unobtanium either.
I know a few people in the renfair and historical re-enactment crowd. Some of these folks tend to romanticize the medieval times in exactly the same way you seemed to romanticize the analog music making.
Like OMG, clothing so so much better and healthier when you saw it yourself from fabric you weaved yourself on a loom, from threads you spun yourself from flax. Even better if you grew the flax yourself and forged the needle yourself.
Except, of course, that this process takes an insane amount of time and effort and the resulting clothing looks and feels like crap because of how coarse and non-uniform the handmade fabric is. It is also dull gray and it takes even more effort to make it white and then more effort to die it some other color. It catches dirt easily and is hard to wash, it wrinkles something terrible and it fades when you wash it. Unlike modern clothing we are so used to wearing that we forget all the innovation and technology that went into it.
Forget it so thoroughly, in fact, that we forget that there were good reasons to change.
The industrial revolution and its consequences...
@@nanocyde_artistif by consequences you mean cheaper, better clothing and cheaper, more powerful music production tools, then yes :)
@@mitechko Somebody wrote a book about "Industrial Society and its Future"....
both are good. they are even good together.
The style is quirky with the analog set up...just get some my volts ac to usb and you can power all synths with a battery bank. Maybe consider a roland cube...you have a real forest jam concept video
Or whatever portable power bank deal: Digital and analog becomes the same based on the digital mediums we represent the content with.
I've built a few clones of classic synthesizers. The one thing you learn from doing this is how much difference exists from analog synth to analog synth.
People paying 3K for a 303 is silly. Most 303s sound "good" and are maybe worth the $1000 in components which comprise it. A few sound "great" and those are maybe worth their price. They might be 1:10 though? Perhaps less. There's not even a really good understand of what makes the secret sauce. There are a few mods out there but they go by the name of "dice-roll" so you can imagine what you're getting.
Bro just get the Behringer version.
@@huntergalloway3944 The Behringer 303 clone is built like shit out of cheap plastic. So its pretty accurate to the original in that regard too. Same goes for their 606.
The Behringer EDP Wasp clone remains hilarious to me because its actually built better than the original.
analog purism in electronic music does not survive contact with Depeche Mode. that band made me buy a rack sampler 😅
Alot of the big names of 80s electronic were very pro digital.
I personally believe its because the analogue synths they started with were more complex (think a Pro One, Kobol Expander, Roland System 100 or EDP Wasp) when it came to modulation options, so they easily adjusted to more complicated digital synthesis models, i.e FM and Wavetable.
Meanwhile most artists that started with something like a Minimoog in the 60s or 70s were fully accustomed to trying to get the most out of gear with very few sound design options.
Depeche Mode started with a Kobol Expander if i remember correctly.
Not a fan of Yello or Art of Noise then? They did brilliant things with digital in the 80s
Lots of true and good points in this video! I recently saw a short clip of Rick Rubin talking about music as art, and how important it is to create art for yourself the way YOU want it. There is off course no "right" way to make art, or music, and analog vs digital isn't about what's best. I don't consider myself a "real musician" and I don't know how to "properly produce" music. I have a passion for vintage test equipment and I'm an electronics engineer who love strange sounds. I don't make "good" music, perhaps not even music, but I'm having fun, and as a result, some of my stuff is a lot better than some "proper music". Art is about origininality and passion, and I believe a lot in creativity by limitations. When you (Robert O'Blivion) talk about the downsides of analog tape recordings and all the work to keep old analog equipment in good condition, I think about all the creativity that was invented in the studios during the 1960's and 70's. I don't think they always knew exactly what they were doing, but they let the joy of experimenting take over and they were not afraid of doing something "wrong and crazy". I make my music with vacuum tubes in vintage test equipment, but I allow myself to use digital effects like guitar pedals, and I also record digitally and use a PC for "analog" editing via Audacity. I also have a few modern synths, but I don't feel bad about that. I just happen to have found my own way of making music, and I think that not knowing what I'm doing all the time, and not being a properly schooled musician, is what makes my art unique. At least I'm having fun while creating. So, there is no "digital vs analog", it's all about creativity and passion!
Use whatever you want. That's the beauty of today's technology
I use both
the only analog synths I have are 3 moogs ngl no cap
Digital and VA synths don't necessarily sound bad, but software does... For example: No software can come close to the JP8000 supersaw for example, and I've heard all the "best" emulations...
Everything software sounds worse, if you listen to new most new records, they sound like shit. But you can also listen to modern records like Haxprocess Caverns of Duat and Miscreance Convergence which were recorded using analogue equipment, and they sound amazing...
Digital and virtual analog synths are technologically indistinguishable from software.
@@nanocyde_artist but why don't they sound the same then? I don't know electronics, but there must be something there. Try making a Supersaw in Serum (it has the super detune mode in Global settings, you can import the JP wavetable as well) - it's not possible to get it to sound good.
@@nanocyde_artist I mean don't get me wrong, I would love to use software for everything, but I just couldn't get the sounds and the production value that I wanted out of software. And I've been doing this since 2010... And it's not only me, nobody can. For example listen to any Amp sims... marketed as great sounding revolutionary etc etc... they sound like shit, whoever plays them sounds bad. That's why unfortunately I NEED hardware, and it sucks.. but it is what it is...
Diva digital module is very close to JP-80x0’s, but none of the filters are not, so it’s hard to make 1:1 sounds. Discovery Pro is really close to Nord Lead 2 and I use both on the road, but I sometimes fire up the real things just for the fun of it. My Nord Rack has some sounds that have this distinct twang or bite, especially A/B’d solo, but not sure anyone would hear the difference in the mix. Anyway… I’ve had both hardware analog & digital stuff and numerous plugins, both unique ones and emulations and I’m most of the time ITB, plus play with hardware, both analog & digital here and there when I feel like it. Not a sound quality difference, but feel & vibe, and quality of life & speed with ITB’s total recall vs. setup & recording time and unrepeatable quirks & happy accidents.
@@darude There are some outliers for sure. Diva sounded very "alive" and exciting to me the very first second I played it, it's definitely a cut above other VSTs! I'll check out the Discovery Pro.
I would also recommend trying the DSP56300 Emulation project (Virus DSP chip emulation), it sounds pretty good, one of the best out there.
Software can perform well enough for some things for sure, but still I can't get the results that I want without a good hardware Vocal Pre, Compression & Guitar Amps. I'm certain that it's partly my incompetence, but I'm very experienced with Guitars & Amps, and I can with 100% certainty say that the real Amplifiers sound way better. I can never get my Mesa Dual Rectifier sound from a plugin.
Now there is a separate discussion of taste & preference that I won't comment much on. The ubiquity of software productions indeed manufactures taste - it makes people used to it & therefore like it, but I personally like (and aspire to) the 70s- to mid 2000s productions the most.
Anyways, it's a pleasure to communicate with you man! Your work is very inspirational and I'm glad you're still being productive and also enthusiastic enough to watch nerdy YT vids :)) To many more great records!
Is an idea that digital can replicate analogue sounds, this is a misnomer given that analogue devices and the sounds they produce are unique and evolve over time.
A Moog 37 at a studio will gain a sound according to the conditions it it used within, both with its environment and given HOW it is used by the people in the studio. Through wear it attains its own profile and this character enhances its appreciation amongst those of the genre who use it.
Digital can never replicate this.
Most analogue synths actually got digital circuits for controlling the oscillators to not let them go out of tune too much too fast since the 80s.
Wendy Carlos famously despised the Minimoog with all of her existance due to how quickly it would go out of tune and need finetuning when playing over longer time.
Mini disc was a big deal for me.
CDs are still relevant due to their quality and low price imo
Claiming that it is "better" to make mix tapes on cassette because ot is more difficult as opposed to making a digital playlist is simply ridiculous.
t don't see the pain and suffering and lost time involved in making a cassette as positives in any way.
I can make a playlist on a streaming platform and put just as much or even more thought into it's content than if I did it on an analog cassette.
As to instruments sometimes analog is quite different than digital and sometimes not. A DX7 just doesn't sound like a Mini Moog. Somebody might prefer one or the other but the difference is simply subjective and personal.
Please low-pass your field recording of your self, there is way too much high end hiss from raising the noise floor
As a EE I physically winced at "digital hardware synths are just lines of code running on a computer". At the end of the day, every signal is an analog signal. Digital hardware synths, especially early ones, have so much nonlinear analog mojo in the D/A stages, which were thoughtfully designed by great analog engineers. These synths offered new METHODS of synthesis that are simply not feasible with analog - and sound fantastic.
This simply isn't true for most digital synths. Most analog emulations are done in software, with clean near-linear D/As like any other converting the signal with imperceptible coloration. Most people ranting about D/A in things like, the Virus synthesizers, are coping hard over a non-existent phenomenon.
There are exceptions, like hybrid synthesizers that make use of an analog filter stage or analog distortion. But these aren't the rule.
As an Ultravox fan, I'm not sure your 'digital' thesis holds water. After 1984, Ultravox ditched drum machines (they fired their drummer) and became, like many formerly synth-based bands, much more acoustic in their sound. Their final album of the 80s, U-Vox, even included a collaboration with the Irish folk group The Chieftains. For me, it wasn't a matter of digital synths being inferior, it was those bands making rubbish music because they'd run out of fresh ideas and so turned to that always-revealing claim of "We're going back to our roots". Might have been interesting for Kraftwerk to have joined that wave and returned to flutes and organs.
The point? 7 minutes in and there is nothing interesting here; just an autobiographical navel-gaze.
we are living in a sad time for making music, I've been doing this for almost 25 years now as a hobby, with some minor success in form of a few releases, but I start being less and less drawn into this. It just doesn't matter anymore, nobody listens to this, unless you are creating some dumb ''content'' around your music and posting every day. There's 100,000 tracks uploaded to spotify every day so its hard to stand out - especially that the labels expect you to make music that is already there and fits the algorithms, to get interest from the listeners. we are just a few years away from having AI generated music.
Its somewhat the double edged sowrd of music in general.
It gets easier and easier to make music with time, but it also means theres more people making music around.
Though at the same time, the reality was somewhat similair in the past. Most big artists only became famous because they had contacts to people already working in the music industry. Its just way more visible in a time with internet.
As someone into really experimental electronic music, I keep making music because I want to create something. I don't care if it never racks up numbers, after all I'm not trying to make music that appeals to everyone anyways.
@@eightcoins4401 yes you're right, you have some great insights here! I also make this mostly for myself, but having a small group of at least a few dozen real followers would really help. It seemed to be much easier to achieve in the times when soundcloud was new, somewhere around then 😃 now people forget you 10 seconds after the post.
Anyway, what I mentioned earlier is probably just a phase. I focus more on learning to actually play the keys better nowadays, more than I do production, so one way or another I will keep doing this :)
There is literally nothing more boring thab the analogue v digital debate in music. Yes, digital can sound unnaturally clean, but people qho go on and on about analogue are too often merel obsessed with a fetish. Great business for the music companies tho
The funny thing is theres already tools to make digital production sound less unnaturally clean.
Most of the time it appears to me like what people usually call warmth is just basic compression.
Most of how a well maintained vinyl record sounds also comes down to EQ and Compression caused by how the riaa inversion curve works compared to a 1:1 reel recording.
@@eightcoins4401 it's true! Part of the fun of modern sound design is designing that "natural" sound floor back in. Hiss, brown noise, modulation. It's become an aesthetic in and of itself (lofi?).
Nome of this matters. Do whatever you want to do.