i think nobody would like to afford one analogue filter for each of the up to 90 voices... also i think the mini moog inspired cascade filter in the virus is very close to the original...
best, marc
you could get a Dave Smith Tetra for analog stuff
it even has usb 2.0 and a software editor a bit like vc
i would suggest you go buy it right away.
The alesis andromeda is a beast too has really really fat ass oscillators and filters
You'd be surprised just how 'analoge' the virus's filters can sound if you put your mind to it...
You'd be surprised just how 'analoge' the virus's filters can sound if you put your mind to it...
I don't think they sound analog - good digital yes, analog no.
Well a lot of people have a distorted view on what 'true analogue' sounds like - to the point where they've said something that is actually analogue is not 'true analogue' without realising...
True analogue is a myth - just like the myth that vinyl sounds better (true, vinyl has a unique quality that some people prefer - which could and has been faked without too much trouble).
Just as soon as the technology improves - and I believe that the Virus is one of the few modern synths that can pull it off convincingly at the moment - mimicking analogue filters will be easy (and i mean mimicking in as much as one 'such and such' filter sounds like another of the same...).
Besides all that, i much prefer to have an imperfect filter in digital, where i can have endless instances of it, to a single analogue filter which i had to pay through the nose for...
True analogue is a myth - just like the myth that vinyl sounds better (true, vinyl has a unique quality that some people prefer - which could and has been faked without too much trouble).
There is no myth as to what true analog is. You could possibly consider the new school analog synths that have digital tuning to not be true analog, I guess. As for vinyl, it produces frequencies twice as high as what most digital mediums output today, so, no, that hasn't been faked. If you want to argue whether most humans can hear frequencies that high or whether it affects them is another story.
Yeah, even cds at 44.1kHz provide frequencies above what humans can hear - people who can hear above 18kHz, let alone 22kHz, are few and far between, and these frequencies provide little in terms of aesthetics...
Fact is that human hearing has a finite bandwidth, and is in many ways discrete, and certainly has an SNR limit well beyond the SNR of the subtleties in an analogue filter that may be missed compared to the volume of a mix as a whole (if you treat the rest of the mix as noise). Esentially im saying in any produced track the subtleties would be drowned out - and, since nearly all music listened to is stored digitally, and as mp3, these subtleties are discarded by being rounded off anyway.
A little back on topic, however, I would love to see (or hear) an analogue filter inspired by the ARP odysseys mellow low pass - It really is an elusive tone to replicate....
I think if you have a delve into the details of analogue vs digital + sample rates you will start to realise why analogue is 1. different and 2. defintately a higher standard of original sound source vs digital.
Of course once the analogue signal is passed into a digital resampling domain you can argue that the analogue has been lost and depleted.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_sound_vs._digital_sound
Way to look at it is compare waveforms on a oscilloscope (not on your computer cause that would convert the signal to digital prior to analysing and showing the results.
and I introduce you to the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, on top of that, if you look at the SNR of sampling quantization of anything above and including 16-bit, it is well beyond the realms of human perception. Thus you have a finite problem, thus there is a discrete and digitally programmable solution.
In fact, the ONLY realm of analogue left to be conquered by digital is in saturation/distortion, where the interactions become highly non-linear, and this is where vast amounts of MMACCs and bandwidth are needed to pull up the model for various different situations
There is no digital medium that sounds anything like listening to a phonographic record. As for not being able to hear an analog filter because you're playing back though a digital medium, that's nonsense. The difference in sound of an analog filter isn't subtle, it's drastic, and that difference gets recorded, it doesn't get rounded off because the difference in an analog filter isn't just in the higher frequencies.
A little back on topic, however, I would love to see (or hear) an analogue filter inspired by the ARP odysseys mellow low pass - It really is an elusive tone to replicate....
I'd like to hear ANY digital filter emulate ANY analog filter for that matter.. My Waldorf Pulse or Moog Rogues filter say...
Gimme a week or so with them and i would be happy to produce a piece of software to emulate them - it would be a challenge, however, to get them streamlined enough not to require a significant enough portion of a DSPs MMACs....
People forget that the trick is not to perfectly replicate the interaction of an analogue filter - but to provide a program complex enough to fool a human ear into not being able to distinguish.
The human hearing system is not as complex as people would like to think, and one day, possibly not too far in the future, electronics will be powerful enough to provide such complexity in a practical environment...
People forget that the trick is not to perfectly replicate the interaction of an analogue filter - but to provide a program complex enough to fool a human ear into not being able to distinguish..
If you could perfectly replicate the "interaction" of it, why would you need to "fool the human ear"?
because one is easier than the other, that was the whole point
The whole point is to trick the human ear instead of replicating the sound because it's easier to program?
