You've kind of answered your own questions here - it's the limitations of analogue electronics.

I did once think of a way of making a analogue "wavetable" synth.
You'd take the basic waves then process them in different ways (invert, offset, fold), then you'd mix these all together to create your new waves.

The problem is the circuitry would have to be replicated for each oscillator. It'd be hideously expensive.

As for FM, well as you've noticed it doesn't track well. Your Andromeda also does FM but even with all the tuning on it still doesn't work well polyphonically.


The answer seems to use a hybrid approach. Digital can give you different waveforms in different ways and then an analogue filter gives you the analogueiness.


The Modal 008 gives you multiple waveforms simultaneously. Once they've put slew on the animator you might be able to use it to control those levels. If it can do it that would give you a degree of true analogue wave morphing.

(Cross mod)FM, wavefolding/shaping/multiplying, ring modulation.
Basic synthesis techniques that involve a world of new waveforms that derive from the 5 basic ones.

Meh, the Micromoog could do that 40 years ago.

Well sure, but I think Pro5 was just offering some contemporary examples.

One bucket contains black, the second grayish, the third white.

Ah, but those are shades, not colors. Even so, in the right hands...

And? add it to the fkin list then. It wasn't a pissing contest. It was just examples I know of.

In physics world perhaps, In visual art world they are not.
So is digital waveforms and analog waveforms shades or colours?

Exactly.

I'll simply never understand people who aren't willing to at least try all the tools available to them. To be honest, I just can't see only using analog subtractive synthesis. Given unlimited funds and even with the very large pallet of sounds available on just analog synths, I'd still want other flavors to cook with. Sure, I think there are (sometimes) differences in tone/character between analog, digital and VST when it comes to synths--and all three have categories have the good, the bad and the ugly and most of them kind find a place in a open-minded artist's work at some point or another.

If someone wants to use only "pure" analog synths to make music. Cool. Best of luck. Even as a person "in the know", when it comes to just listening to and enjoying music I don't really care what instruments someone uses--and neither does the majority of labels and listeners out there. Unless you are making music only for synth nerds who sit around comparing waveforms all day...maybe then worry about the fact that you used a VST for that pad sound in track 7....

I really don't see a lot of that. The analog "purists" that I see have tried a variety of sound sources/interfaces, and have found what they prefer, so only seek out what they like/what works for them.

Ain't nutin wrong with that.

I use a variety of sound sources, analog synth (now, thank god), va, digital sampling, vst's, but honestly 90% or more of the synth sounds I use are emulations of analog, and I use digi emulations only because I'm perpetually broke ass. If I had skrill I'd be far more of an analog "purist". I spend a lot of time and effort making my digi sound like analog. That's what I like.

[QUOTE=golden beers;11035694]Help! I've only got 3 colours of paint! What the hell am I supposed to do with that?[/

Detune two of them then..........

Fair enough--I wasn't trying to presume to know the experience of anyone. And yes. It is all down to taste in tone. I guess I'm just totally baffled by the by most of the OP.

OMFG!? People like electronic music not made with analog synths and aren't trying to sound analog? Somebody sound the F*$%ing alarm. Save the President and the Sweet Baby Jesus from the non-analog satanists! No its not convenience or price--as you said in the paragraph before--analog synths can only do so much.

Yep. That is why people use them!

Well. As long as all the analogites still have room on their credit cards or can take out a second mortgage on their house, analog isn't going to die. You guys are waaay too dedicated to let that happen! Mean while the rest of us will be happy to explore all the new ways of making sounds.

But seriously, when someone comes up with a way to make an all analog FM or granular synth that doesn't cost as much as the national debt, I'll be pre-ordering it right along with the rest of you because I too believe that in most cases analog sounds different and that different is good. Until then, I choose not to limit myself.

I guess the OP just came off as whiny in some way and I'm sitting here like "dude...Wubba Tee Efff...there are so many ways to make and mangle sounds. Get over it...or run it through an analog filter and a nice saturation unit..."

Judging by the some of the threads, Dave needs to pay less attention to what GS members want, and more on what they can afford.

It's amazing how vocal some critics can be until they are asked to put their money where their mouth is.

No problem, it just messed with my head

Aren't they all equivalent to a bunch of sine waves anyways?

Yep! A waveform many analog synths don't even have. Harf harf!

Blimey, one sarcastic remark and I get me head bitten off!

One of my all time favorite hybrids: the Korg DW-8000

https://soundcloud.com/synth-service...e/korg-dw-8000

The KingKORG does a pretty great impersonation of it.

buy a decent rompler, its cheaper than analog and has lots more waveforms and sonic possibilities

I have an fs1r, ex5, e4xt ultra, EIII and tons of softsynths. I use them in my music all the time. I have 25 years of experience with synths, including playing hundreds of digital and analog synths. I've played CS80s, and the waldorf wave. Sometimes I like a digital synth doing a straight up saw wave, but If I like digital doing what analog can do, why not the other way around?
I never said it had to be analog to be good. It was an observation about the variety of sound digital synthesis provides and people choosing to go with that variety instead of analog. My point was I'd like it if analog synths can do more than "only so much" You actually just agreed with here...

I think you have the wrong idea about my OP because you are agreeing with my philosophy 100% I'm not nor recomending not using digital synths. I don't know why I sounded that way to you?... Traumatic geasrlutz arguements?
I programmed the synth presets for a reason refill used by thousands of people (it was sold at GC) and I know plenty of tricks. I was running 10 matrix sequencers into 10 subtractor CVs and saving as giant templates of a hundred sounds each, before there was ever a thor or combinator. It's easy to make a mistake about someone's experience going by a single post on a forum.

Again I'll repeat my OP in a simpler way... Though I love analog synths with normalized signal paths, I'm not content with the limitations in their oscillator section of just having several waveforms and ways to modulate them. I see the variety digital synths can do in this area and I enjoy using them and they also sound good to me albeit with a very different tonal characteristic. Wouldn't it be cool if we could ALSO have analog synths with a little more variety in their oscillators?

Maybe something exists or is on the horizon for that. Maybe there's a a mega wavefolder/shaper thing or there's some obscure oscillator module out there without needing whole modular system to use it. Btw that endorphin.es oscillator posted earlier in this thread looks and sounds completely rad.

^fair enough and no you didnt say many of things directly...I guess I was just misreading the tone of the post and extrapolated from that mistaken ton. Fair game. It was mostly the second paragraph that I was getting this vibe from.

Gearslutz is regularly a traumatic experience and a source of entertainment. ..a paradox I cannot seem to unravel

It's not the waveform, it's how you use it.

Well, I don't care what they're called and I can't fault a company for some sort of marketing to differentiate themselves from the pack. All I know is that I've been listening to analog and digital synths now for 35 years or so and the digital oscillators on the .002 sound considerably better than almost any other digital oscillators I've ever heard.

Not to be a jerk to the OP, but that's the point, eh? When we talk about "analog" what we're mostly talking about is "continuous," eh? We don't want that low bit depth sound of say the Waldorf XT. We don't want to hear aliasing like the Virus. Of course, unless we do. For the sake of argument though, say what ever technology Modal is using creates a variety of non traditional analog wave shapes that are completely without digital artifact (Not that I think, or know this to be true, I'm going by what I've heard. Someone was nice enough to send me high resolution audio files of a few of the raw oscs. I didn't analyze them.) So, then who cares if this waveform is done digitally or in the analog domain? I guess I don't see the point of the OP wishing analog could do something that's considerably out of it's wheelhouse. It's like saying, "Well, I really like motorcycles, but why can't we just take a car and alter it so it rides on two wheels because I really dig the way my car's windshield keeps bugs off my face." It's a lot easier to just get a motorcycle with a good fairing and wear a proper helmet.

Also, so if Modal isn't doing anything new to get what they're doing... why isn't it a standard way of doing things? I've owned enough wavetable synths to know that 16 bit waveforms aren't enough to get a really smooth sound throughout the audio range. I don't know what the Prophet 12 waveforms are like, but they don't seem like they alias much... I'd have to look at them with more scrutiny (this is not related to my issues with it's sawtooth and pulse waves). Is it due to money? the .002 sure ain't cheap, but you'd think that a big player like Korg or Roland would have been able to mass produce this tech to a point where the cost became affordable. This is all just speculation though, I'm really just asking questions. I always assumed that smooth sounding wavetable synths were using high bit depth wavetable files.

While I'm on the topic, if you check out some of the latest software synths you'll find some amazing stuff that almost sounds free of digital artifacts. Check out Mpowersynth.

Well two reasons basically.

Firstly it's not really practical in a fully digital synth, and in fact completely impossible in a computer based plugin, because it works on varying the actual sample clock rate to vary pitch, your sound card is running at a fixed sample rate at any time.

Secondly, when you do use it, normally in a hybrid situation, such as with the OSCar, or the Modal, (and there were others I believe) as you increase voices your component count (and thus size and cost) soon goes up. It's harder to share a DAC between voices for example, Chris Huggett managed to get two oscillators and the control voltages he needed out of one DAC, but from their comments I believe Modal have used the same approach that Paul Maddox used in his earlier Monowave design, one DAC per oscillator. It's certainly the easiest way to get the highest quality, but it's also the most expensive.

As to why you've never heard them sounding as good as in the Modal, well the use of a DAC per oscillator could be one factor, another could be the sample size (I don't know what size they are in the Modal, most previous designs were 8 bit samples), also I don't know what size wavetables they're using.

You're right a don't give a damn about the process an oscillator or filter is made with that makes it sound a certain way. It's the certain way I care about. I like analog stuff (not only Mr Paega ) because of how it sounds and of course the immediacy of the controls. If digital could sound like that, I'd rush to sell my analogs while they still had some value!

Do you think it's just lack of digital artifacts that make them sound that certain way though? I'm fine with they sound once recorded into computer digitally so it's not the continuous wave aspect that I like then is it? There's some JUNO sais quoi about analog synths though. Could it be something besides aliasing and a little bit of drift that I hear?

GS is a traumatic entrainment!

Trauma Based Mind Control