The elephant in the... analogue vs. digital synth debates

There have been decades of debates (and even pontifications) about analogue synthesizers being "better" than digital ones. In the rational cases the comparisons were made within the confines of some specific context of behavioural aspects or particular sonic identity for particular sub-genres of (electronic or other) music. However, in most cases cases a central aspect was ignored or side-stepped. 

After decades of sound synthesis evolution with myriad different methods opening many different creative avenues and even creating new workflows, it is remarkable that one still has to point at the tacit, ginormous, and blindingly fluorescent elephant in the room.

Let's first quickly jolt down what is not worth digging into when one wants to introduce this elephant, because the fallacy is far more fundamental than the following technical details. So no, this will not dig into details of:

• The evolution of computational power, thus mathematical abilities, too, which rendered decades-old arguments about accuracy of signal representation, oscillator behaviours, characteristics of digital filters, and effect chains factually out of date and/or blatantly unaware of current realities. The fundamental problem of these debates is not in the area of who can hear what analogue imperfection, warmth, charming instability, smoothness etc. in true analogue gear when compared to analogue modeling synths. 
• Coupled with the above, the evolution of physical modeling (of circuits and electroacoustic phenomena) arrived at a point where one could specify in even the age of a circuit - and produce remarkable emulations of the original analogue version. Again, any measurable or perceivable differences are again unrelated to the central problem. 
• Subjective preferences in work flows and nostalgia (e.g. about the ephemerality that comes from those work flows). Again, these have nothing to do with the particular, very large, elephant in the room even when there are valid rational aspects (e.g. pros and cons of instabilities, the need or lack of need for instant recall etc.)

Now then... about that elephant... 

Well, to make its presence disturbingly obvious, let's temporarily take a seemingly bizarre step, even leap, far outside the world of sound synthesis. Let us venture a bit into the history of painting - and, within that, the history of pigments and painting techniques. 

Although the use of oil paints dates back to ancient times, the phenomenal revolution that changed everything came only in the 15th century - not only because oils replaced eggs as a binding agent, but techniques perfected by Jan van Eyck and Leonardo da Vinci for the use of these oil-based paints enabled the creation of unprecedented details, smooth transitions, subtle layering of pigments, optical effects, hence realism. Certain materials allowed artists to invent and use new techniques that have led to entirely new, extended, artistic palette (pun intended).

Leonardo's use of the sfumato technique (just think of the Mona Lisa) was enabled by this type of paint that could be applied in thin layers to produce unprecedented subtle transitions. Jan Van Eyck's somewhat creepy Arnolfini Portrait is another fabulous example of his perfected oil painting technique - so astonishing, that later on (the anyway only partially trustworthy) Vasari even attributed, wrongly, the invention of oil painting to him - and this was parroted by many for way too long... even by Google art history pages at present time...

In addition, the expansion of trade routes gave painters access to materials that had been either entirely new or just horrendously expensive until then. A red dye extracted from an exotic insect gave painters a vibrant crimson never seen before. Chemists, from the 18th century onward, created new pigments or discovered synthetic, hence affordable, versions of extremely pricey ones - let's just think of ultramarine, which in the Renaissance era could literally bankrupt a painter. 

With the invention of myriad synthetic pigments, industrial paints, and the new painting techniques that emerged with the use of these, artists created never before imagined nor seen tones and textures. To mention just one milestone: acrylic paints suddenly gave painters water-based, quick-drying, and cheap paints that had vibrant colours. Painters could achieve watercolour effects whilst exploiting how the canvas absorbed the water-based pigments - and so on and on.

Rothko is just one example of artists who used all kinds of pigments, materials, and techniques, from watercolour to acrylic dyes to oil to ink. After all, instead of ideologising and/or eulogising one type of material or technique, some embraced whatever was available - because those pigments and techniques were tools of expression. 

They did not define themselves by the tools they used, somethint that would have totally turn upside down the relationship between the artist and the instrument(s)... Does the latter sound familiar from somewhere?...

So let's imagine a painter in the 21st century stating that using primed panels and egg tempera, the type of paint that used egg yolk as binding agent (think of the Renaissance greats), is "better" than all of the countless dyes and techniques, hence ranges of new colours, optical effects, transitions etc. that got added to the world of painting from the 15th century onward.

Such painters can only avoid sounding ludicrous or nonsensical if they frame their claim within the context of a personal methodology, preference, and/or artistic aim that needs those particular pigments and techniques whilst disregarding myriad others that deliver their own unique artistic effects.

Some do justify their self-limiting choice within such well-defined context, with the choice and the results being highly respected - think of James Lynch's landscapes where he returns to the toolbox of Medieval masters because he is after specific effects. 

The point is not that Lynch adopts old pigments and techniques. The hopefully very obvious point is that some artists adopt a certain well-defined subset (!) of currently available means of artistic expression in the service of particular and specific end goals.

OK, so... back to synths then - and that elephant in the analogue vs. digital synth debates. 

If not terribly obvious by now, the central aspect that renders such these debates vacuous is what analogue sound synthesis occupies in the galaxy of sound synthesis methods. 

Most analogue synthesizers are based on so-called subtractive synthesis, Other analogue synthesis methods can add to pre-existing frequency-domain content - for example, ring modulation adds frequency components that make highly characteristic sounds. Frequency modulation, when done via analogue means, can also result in complex spectra - but this is lightyears behind complex multi-operator setups for numerous practical reasons.

For example, frequency modulation-based analogue synthesis cannot create digital multi-operator FM synthesis in the vein of John Chowning's revolutionary method, because the precise control of myriad parameters (and an inherent mathematical stability essential for the reproducibility of a certain sound) cannot be achieved via analogue oscillators and their analogue controls. Tiny instability or change in parameters can produce vastly different sounds, therefore these parameters need precise and stable means of control, not to mention the programmable evolution in real time of myriad parameters. 

Without going down the sound synthesis rabbit hole, the obvious fact is that analogue synths and all their vast, world-changing, and still highly fascinating sonic capabilities occupy a mere subset of sound synthesis methods. 

The list can go on and one. As just one extra example, any objective person with any command of sound synthesis, related physics, and signal processing knows that no analogue synthesis method can produce the timbres created by Wolfgang Palm's particular type of wavetable synthesis, nor those of granular synthesis... 

But again, the key point is not the capabilities, strengths, and limitations of certain synthesis methods and the instruments that employ them. 

The "A is better than B" debate, when it comes to analogue "vs." digital synthesizers, only holds any water whatsoever when it is framed, exactly as in the case of painting, by personal particulars. 

The problem with a nebulous "better" is the irrational generalisation of a narrow and  personal frame of context, i.e. the elevation of one specific subset of sonic capabilities above the entire range of capabilities. 

If someone is only and only after what subtractive analogue synthesis can produce in terms of sonic palette then one can eulogize and even ideologize it - as long as the confines of that sonic world are honestly acknowledged. 

If one is only using subtractive synthesis in its pure analogue form for musical genres, styles, 'moods' and sonic colours that are characterised or even defined by that synthesis method, then fine. Be rational about it and see that a subset of colours are being used from a vast palette. Even if that subset is fiercely said to be inimitable and unique (this is a whole other debate on analogue modeling accuracy), it is still a subset. 

The arguments centred on a resounding "synthesis method X is better" are as fallacious as an "egg tempera yellow is better than all other vast ranges of pigments and painting techniques" statement would be in the sphere of visual arts.

Irrational, even deplorably desperate attempts to square the circle did and do exist. Some had set out to demonstrate that everything that came after analogue (subtractive) synthesis can be created via the latter. It is deplorable not only due to the immense waste of creative and engineering efforts that could have been used for using the right tools for the right job (and focusing on the artistic goals, if any) - but also because it shows the cognitive dissonance at work. Attempts to make rudimentary and impractical (this, unusable) analogue 'replicas' of some digital synthesis methods reveal the psychology of obstinate denial of fundamental physics, acoustics, and sensory perception laws.

For example, the spectral movements caused by Palm's revolutionary wavetable synthesis (not to be confused with the generic uses of the term 'wavetable') cannot be achieved via analogue means - due to its core, defining, principle. Internet examples of euphoric analogue fetishists demonstrating the morphing from one simple waveform into another one via immense effort and purely analogue means are as commendable as they are tragicomic. 

Those attempts demonstrate not only the fundamental limitation that is hit immediately by them - but also the lack of understanding of what a PPG Wave synthesizer and all its famed successors did to create their unique sound world.

Similarly, attempts to demonstrate multiple analogue oscillators frequency modulating each other demonstrate the inherent absurdity of the task: beyond a two-oscillator setup, the tiny differences in the oscillator circuits (from instance to instance), instabilities in their parameters, and the inability of controlling precisely the notoriously vast number of often rapidly evolving parameters make the sounds impossible to control and reproduce.

If one takes physical modeling synthesis, for example the Karplus Strong algorithm of a string model, and dials in precisely controlled (even physically impossible!) parameters that cannot occur in the real world... or excites the string with complex audio waveforms instead of e.g. plucking... it is simply pointless to even discuss the analogue emulation of this. 

One could go on and on. 

In both worlds, painting and sound synthesis-employing music, analogue sound synthesis methods are a subset of methods that have produce their eminently different sonic worlds - a simple fact, even if in our post-factual society facts have been reduced to mere subjective opinions. 

Please, whoever resorts to the sweepingly general "better" rooted in a false dichotomy: add an acceptable reasoning that is rooted in your personal artistic aim - and acknowledge the boundaries of the island on which you chose to move to. 

That island has unique beauty and buried treasures to uncover over time - but there are vast, very different continents out there. Ignoring them is a personal and artistic choice, so is traveling around the world and embracing all the distinct marvels of all other islands and continents. Some choose and even need the latter for their sonic ventures, like all artists throughout history who embraced all creative means and put them in the service of their art - instead of defining themselves via a tiny subset of them.