From analoguediehard Sent Mon, Dec 15th 2003, 04:28
From analoguediehard Sent Mon, Dec 15th 2003, 04:28
Kenneth Elhardt wrote: > After 5 years of listening to nonsense regarding analog issues it's time to > set things straight. With pleasure. Fire away. > Myth #1: Moog oscillators are warm, organic, alive, constantly changing and > moving. > > False. Unless a circuit is malfunctioning, the raw waveforms of any analog > are static and boring. Watch me apply PWM to a single "static and boring" VCO. Watch me apply modulation to the waveshape of a single "static and boring" Buchla Complex Oscillator. Watch me apply modulation to the waveshape of a single "static and boring" Voyager VCO. With any three you get dynamic spectrum animation. Now it moves and constantly changes. "Warm, organic, alive" is highly subjective. You have the Moog crowd aside the Xpander crowd who tout the "organic" quality of their VCOs. And they're both entitled to their preference, so there's no point in attaching fact to personal taste. Music is art, remember? Not science. Next. > Myth #2: The belief that VCO's from different manufactures all sound > radically different enough to justify having many different types. > > False. Ever heard a Buchla Complex Oscillator? The pulse wave of a Moog 901B? The waveshapes of those VCOs are radically shaped and sound nothing like the garden variety VCO. I'll pit my the pulse wave of my Voyager VCO against your Doepfer/MOTM/Synth.com anyday. Next. > Only the CEM based sawtooth had a slightly different sound being > more muted sounding compared to the other more raspy sounding VCOs, Oops, you blew your own "all VCOs sound alike" case. Your dissertation is being returned for correction. Next. > Myth #3: CEM based oscillators sound brighter than others. > > False. CEM based waveforms lack the sharp spikes and sudden discontinuities > sometimes seen on other VCOs which can only lead to increased brightness. > An FFT spectrum plot also shows this myth to be false. I'll give you this one. Next. > Myth #4: Moog oscillators are so drifty as to produce unpredicatable > non-cyclic motion in a 13 sound bite. > > False. After delving deeper, I believe that Peake's Moog drift example had > insignificant if not no perceivable drift at all. I'll admit that I did not perceive the short term drift in Peake's mp3, and I am well acquainted with the fabled "Moog drift". However Peake's example was not a Moog VCO but an Ion, so you're putting myths in Peake's mouth. Please rephrase the myth and resubmit proof. Next. > Myth #5: Analog=alive, Digital=static. > > False. No argument, this is popular folklore. Ever hear the THX logo theme? Sounds alive, doesn't it? That is digital synthesis. Shock, horror. Most users confuse analog as being "alive" with its better interface to shaping sounds. Anyone can get "alive" sounds with digital, but before VA and softsynths came along it was much harder shaping the sound from menus, LCD windows, and +/- buttons. Next. > Myth #6: Over exaggeration of analog oscillator drift in general. > > Once an analog synth is warmed up its sound should barely drift at all. Key word to your argument is "should", which states a preference not a fact. As I said in an earlier post, there are unique applications for drifty VCOs and stable VCOs. I would never attempt to use drifty VCOs for polyphonic FM timbres. Drift can be venerable music in the right hands, just as stability can be. > As you can hear from the about VCO tones, there is no reason any of them can > be bashed or extremely highly praised as far as sound quality goes. That > applies to Moog down to Doepfer low-end. You forgot PAiA 4720 VCOs. Can't get any lower than that. My first synth was a PAiA 4700 system. When I discovered a Moog synth the difference was quite extreme. My ears don't lie. > Talk is easy when you don't have to back it up with fact. I've > provided facts and the evidence to back it. This should put these issues to > rest once and for all. (why do I think a certain few will still be in > denial?) Your fact/evidence neglected the exceptions I have raised. That is not the definition of denial. > > Ever consider that some oscillators can "lock" to each other at > > close frequencies? > > Has nothing to do with providing unpredictable and non-cyclic behavior > that was asked for. You missed his point. Two VCOs that "lock" to one another are no longer unpredictable and non-cyclic. > > It DOES need to be taken further because you're excluding the real > > world. > > The real world has temperature, humidity, etc. Oscillators react > > differently to these and also change as their frequency does. Even > > beyone external stimuli, you're basing your definition on simple > > frequency changes, but not defining how those frequencies so change > > and why. > > It doesn't matter. You better believe it *DOES* matter. It is established fact that there are temperature and humidity coefficients in active and passive components, notably the temp error in the base-emitter terminal of a BJT transistor that is highlighted when configured as a logarithmic converter. These coefficients are fixed, unavoidable, and *MUST* be considered when designing a stable circuit. They are also the reason why some VCOs drift more than others. To declare otherwise is denial. If you cannot acknowledge the established physics of transistor theory and how it is applies to the stability of VCOs, then the integrity of your little myth-breaker is shattered. > Nobody can tell whether an oscillator rises in pitch because of > temperature or because it was modulated to do so. Ken, you are a fool. First you dismiss physics, now you ignore history. The ARP 2500 synthesizer gained popularity because many users of early Moog modular synths were frustrated with their VCOs drifting with TEMPERATURE. > None of this has anything to do with musical qualities, aliveness, or > unpredictability. But it has everything to do with art. MC