3 ms·

This is such a bizarre argument to make. An analog synth is typically going to be far more expressive than Pd: most if not all of its settings are immediately a

This is such a bizarre argument to make. An analog synth is typically going to be far more expressive than Pd: most if not all of its settings are immediately available via a physical knob, where with Pd you have to configure a mapping for each parameter--and by default it won't be labelled, so you have to put stickynotes all over the place, and if you change anything, move them all over again. Which you can do! But it's a lot of time spent, which you have to keep on spending as you change your Pd configuration. But that's bracketing out the issue of the sound. Digital synths just don't sound like analog synths, not yet. (The gap is closing every year, sure.) Modelling the subtle variations of an analog synth is a difficult, processor-intensive task, and there's a qualitative difference between the sound of the best digital emulations and the cheapest analog devices. I use both digital and analog synthesizers, and I find that creating usable sounds is much faster with analog. Which translates into more expressiveness, because it's much more possible to change sounds on the fly.

louthy 11y ago
> I find that creating usable sounds is much faster with analog This is a huge part of it for me too. It's so much faster to make a noise that 'sounds right', sits in a mix without excessive EQing (or sometimes any EQing), and requires very little support from additional effects units and has a natural modulation. The fact that you have to let a lot of synths 'warm up' first kinda indicates the magic that holds them together. This also translates to the mixing, I use an analogue mixer too, and the summing of the channels 'just works'. Everything sits in the mix better and I spend less time making it work like I used to in-the-box. That removal of technical hurdles helps keep the creative juices flowing, where previously I'd walk away from a track in frustration because I couldn't 'quite get it right'.
- readymade 11y ago
  Totally with you on the analog summing. It's kind of funny that people love the sound so much, an analog summing mixer often finds its way into the mastering process even if the original production was all digital.

louthy 11y ago

> I find that creating usable sounds is much faster with analog This is a huge part of it for me too. It's so much faster to make a noise that 'sounds right', sits in a mix without excessive EQing (or sometimes any EQing), and requires very little support from additional effects units and has a natural modulation. The fact that you have to let a lot of synths 'warm up' first kinda indicates the magic that holds them together. This also translates to the mixing, I use an analogue mixer too, and the summing of the channels 'just works'. Everything sits in the mix better and I spend less time making it work like I used to in-the-box. That removal of technical hurdles helps keep the creative juices flowing, where previously I'd walk away from a track in frustration because I couldn't 'quite get it right'.

readymade 11y ago
Totally with you on the analog summing. It's kind of funny that people love the sound so much, an analog summing mixer often finds its way into the mastering process even if the original production was all digital.