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of signal representation, oscillator behaviours, characteristics of digital filters, and effect chains factually out of date and/or blatantly unaware of current realities.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.

Horses for courses... and dogmas for decorum

The British expression "horses for courses" originated from the world of horse racing, and it means that different things are best suited for... different things, as certain horses were better suited for certain types of races.

Despite a horse racing parallel, this post would take a leap into the field of sound synthesis methods (and the hype around them) - hence the reason for the expression might become apparent shortly.

So... this post was triggered by a recurring question seen on forums: why doesn't somebody make an analogue FM synth (in specific context, meaning multi-operator complex FM synths)?

Another trigger was  a "demonstration" of "wavetable synthesis" done some time ago with 2 analogue waveforms, triumphantly stating that this is proof that it can be done via analogue means.

This is the point where, in some minds, the analogue synthesis methods move from a solid technological sphere into a realm of fetishes. It is also a perfect example for the case when the astute 'horses for courses' principle is clearly being violated.

Yes, analogue synthesizers have superb capabilities and a distinct personality - unique even, in some cases.

Vast research and development efforts have been spent by companies of all sizes in attempts to perfectly imitate the "analogue sound". Their imperfections and instabilities are one of the, if not the, most crucial features that give them their unique sound. Emulating these imperfections via digital means only seems simple, but actually it is a fiendishly difficult and complex task.

Yamaha DX7

However, if one sees analogue synthesis, due to all its merits and stemming also from undoubtedly hyped discourses on quite ill-informed forums, as "the" method to apply to everything, then one commits a fundamental technical and conceptual error.

This leads to proposals like the mentioned case of making a multi-operator FM synth to "beat" the digital beasts dating all the way back to the era-defining DX7.

It can be imagined, and to an extent, even created in a lab - yes, technology certainly allows it. However, it would be eminently pointless and a supreme waste of effort, if one considers the fact that the mentioned instrument needs to leave the lab and is to be used as an... instrument.

Reasons? Well, tiny changes to the so-called FM operators' parameters can cause vast changes to the sound. What is a mere case of oscillator drifting out of tune in case of substractive analog synths, in FM case this often brings radical changes to what we hear. Reasons are buried in FM synthesis theory, but they are far from obscure reasons.

In simplest case, we can imagine these operators as oscillators with simple waveforms, but later generations of FM synths do vastly more than that. Changing their frequencies can radically alter the resulting spectrum, as one operator modulates other(s) and even has feedback - and if their frequency  drifts, the resulting spectral components shift around - hence fundamentally affect the tones we hear. Not to mention the controls to these operators, which have to have well-synchronised envelopes and precise amounts usually.

Also, in this hypothetical example, even if we assume the analogue multi-operator FM concoction is stable and perfectly controllable (it would be neither), the musician would want to recreate later the FM patch he or she arrived at. This can only be imagined with copious help from digital technology and digital to analogue converters - similar to how early analogue synths acquired patch memory.

However, even in this case (and obviously we already have digital creeping in, albeit not strictly in the sound synthesis part itself), the resulting complexity is, simply put, a mind-blowing mess.

Even in the case of digital FM synths, the constant and justified polemic is centred on the difficulty to program them, and the need for very intuitive and stable interfaces in often outboard software, so that one can cope with even thousands of parameters at play. A supreme and to this day not equalled FM monster like the Yamaha FS1R died as a product shortly after its release, and this was not due to its astonishing (!) sonic capabilities, but its user interface.

Similarly, what was once triumphantly demonstrated in a Facebook synth group as "wavetable synthesis", as an analogue concoction managed to morph the output signal from one simple waveform to another, was something that still firmly resides in a hobby lab.

PPG Wave

Also, it simply just wasn't wavetable synthesis, full stop, in the Wolfgang Palm sense (which led to the revolutionary PPG Wave and its successors, like the current Waldorf Blofeld).

It just isn't wavetable synthesis, by definition... as latter needs perfectly stable and precisely "sliced" waveform parts stored in precise manner in a table, and then precise sweeps that index in this table in perfectly controlled and even modulated manner.

Also, those waveforms are eminently digital, because the wavetables store samples of these waveforms... and then a synth based on this method is scanning those tables. By definition, one cannot have analog waveform slices kept in a static table of values... only digital samples of those waveforms...

The resulting revolutionary sounds' spectral content simply cannot be achieved by a few analogue waveforms morphing into each other. Latter experiment posted on Facebook some time ago was similar to a demonstration of a slow and careful forward parking manoeuvre in a Trabant and then stating "tada, it is perfectly capable of doing all that a Bugatti Veyron can do!".

As a person who spent half a lifetime in signal processing technologies, it is, admittedly, a deplorable sight to see such waste of time, effort, and enthusiasm channeled in completely misguided directions and utter dead ends.

Personal note aside, where above two characteristic examples spectacularly fail is the factual misconception that a certain technology is THE answer for everything in sound synthesis.

The hype and downright fetishisation of analogue synths have a big role to play in the birth of such misconceptions.

Analogue synths are absolutely fantastic in... analogue synthesis, which usually means substractive or additive synthesis whereby oscillator waveforms are taken away from (via filters) or added to (by wave shaping or modulation effects that add harmonics).

Korg Kronos MOD7 top level view

Multi-operator and hybrid FM synthesis engines (e.g. FMX by Yamaha or MOD7 by Korg), wavetable synths (like PPG Wave or Waldorf Blofeld, etc.), granular synths (Waldorf Quantum and countless plugins are capable of this among many other things), the vast array of mighty samplers and so-called romplers (list would be simply huge), plus numerous eminently digital signal bending tricks (think wave sequencing and waveshaping from Korg), constitute vast and complex worlds - often very unique worlds.

Then we have the hybrid synths... Even the aforementioned PPG Wave was actually a hybrid,  since it had famous analogue filters after the digital signal chain. These synths can create phenomenal possibilities. The Korg Prologue flagship analogue synth with a digital add-on engine even lets the user write his/her own oscillators and effect engines, with any algorithm one can think of (that fits in the multi-engine's memory). The Roland JD-Xa can layer and combine complex sounds from both digital and analogue synth engines under its bonnet.

These all add to our sound synthesis and processing capabilities entire new and vast universes of sounds, which are simply impossible to create via analogue synths.

Excluding them in some absolutist hype is a classic and misguided dogmatic approach, and we can encounter it in many forums about electronic music and sound synthesis.

However, trying to replace some horses with others that are eminently unsuitable for, and factually incapable of running, certain courses is a futile at worst, tragicomic at best, attempt.

Conceptually, apart from signal processing theory and technology, where this exercise goes wrong from the start is the failure to see appropriate horses as mere devices to get us, via appropriate courses, to the finish line. Dogmas are not left for the decorum or the viewing area to talk about over a beer, they actually make their way onto the race track...

Analogue, as splendid and as hyped it may be, is not the answer to everything that recent decades of music technology produced. As shockingly obvious it may be to many, each approach has its strengths and weaknesses - and some horses are simply not suited, not even designed, to run certain courses.

Nobody attempted, certainly nobody succeeded, to create cobalt blue, cadmium yellow or ultramarine paints from plant-based pigments just to score some dogmatic point in the art of painting. Well, maybe some have tried, especially when e.g. certain minerals ran into some trade difficulties as it happened in the case of ultramarine, but the results are not exactly surrounding us in galleries... Artists used different paints with different characteristics for different tasks, and with a good reason...

The huge problem is when hype crosses a certain boundary, and makes certain words magical. Not

Waldorf Quantum display

only can hype achieve that, but also it can then make one forget that all, absolutely all, of our electronic instruments are... instruments. Nothing more.

If we forget that, then we can ask questions like one seen recently on a forum: why doesn't a certain major manufacturer see sense and "finally" create an analogue workstation.

Why the question was phenomenal nonsense, well, one can leave that to the reader (small hint, synth workstation product category definition with a feature list)... However, the fact that such conflating of methods, instruments, and categories is even possible, it is a testament to the power of synth hype.

It is a free world, and everybody is entitled to their prejudices, misconceptions, and beliefs - but this particular area is one in which those are at the same time creatively, artistically, and technologically self-defeating...  If hard to swallow, challenge is to name one single groundbreaking creative electronic artist who artificially excludes majority of sound synthesis methods from his or her arsenal, instead of looking at a range of tools to achieve his or her creative aim.

The passing of a visionary: Alan R. Pearlman, founder of ARP

Alan R. Pearlman, founder of, and creative genius behind, ARP Instruments has died on 6 January, aged 93.

Even as a student, after the 2nd World War he was dreaming of electronic instruments that could be real musical instruments for musicians, instead of laboratory curiosities. When he founded ARP Instruments, he started to put his dream into practice - and the list of his patents is impressive to this day.

When Moog and ARP Instruments were rival companies, ARP being the second most known synthesizer brand, even Bob Moog recognised the technical merits of ARP 2500. First of all, unlike Moog synths of the day, the ARP had famously stable oscillators - so it didn't need the notorious frequent re-tunings due to oscillators drifting over time.

Unlike the modular Moog, this ARP legend has employed a matrix system and special pins to achieve the patching, instead of a mass of cables.

Illustrious names used the ARP 2500 and its more affordable successor, the ARP 2600: Pete Townshend, Jean-Michel Jarre, Jimmy Page, David Bowie, Herbie Hancock, Jerry Golsdsmith, Jeff Wayne... and many uses of the legendary synths are as famous as some of these artists.

In Star Wars, the R2-D2 robot's whistles and bleeps were made via ARP 2600, and a few years earlier, the musical communication with the UFO that landed in Close Encounters of the Third Kind was made on an ARP 2500...

Jean-Michel Jarre to this day possesses and uses an ARP 2500, and he employed it on the recent live revival of his classic Oxygene album, too.

As a masterstroke, ARP has also released a charming and eminently portable synth, too - the ARP Odyssey. It was a duophonic, compact and quite affordable powerhouse of a synth has become another sought-after legendary instrument, featured on countless records. Everybody from Klaus Schulze to Chick Corea to ABBA to Billy Currie has used this synths that was ultimately made in three versions.

What can illustrate better the longevity of A. R. Pearlman's ideas and innovations than the fact that mighty Korg in 2015 has resurrected the ARP Odyssey as something that some abbreviate fondly as the KARP Odyssey...

To quote Richard Boulanger, "even at 90 and beyond, Alan R Pearlman was still dreaming of new circuits, modules, and controllers! Undeniably, Alan R Pearlman was an engineering genius. Everyone recognizes that his synthesizers were beyond brilliant. But I truly believe that the heart and soul in his machines drew their spirit and life from Alan’s musical virtuosity on the piano, his truly deep musical knowledge, his passion and enthusiasm for “all” music, and his nurturing and generous support for young composers and performers, regardless of whether they were into classical, avantgarde, film, fusion, rock or pop."

Korg ARP Odyssey

It is extremely rare to have a brilliant engineer and innovator with deep musical sensitivity and understanding of what a musician needs. On top of that, Alan R. Pearlman had superlative feel for ergonomic design, for aesthetic considerations - therefore his creations were true gems of electronic instruments, in the fullest sense of that word.

It is not overstating his and his creations' significance if one says that his instruments had life-changing impact on many, on both technical minds and on great musicians who embraced technology.

Rest in peace, relentless innovator and dreamer...

Opening up and setting free - the Korg Prologue way

Prologue (photo: Korg.com)

Korg Prologue has seen the light of day as a flagship analogue polyphonic synth, and as it was highlighted here at that point, it had a particularly unique feature among its many attributes that designated it "Best in show" synth at NAMM 2018.

It possesses a digital engine, too, and the user-definable custom oscillators and effects in it were, philosophically, an unprecedented move by any manufacturer in this class of instruments.

If we take away all the technical and musical details, what Korg and Prologue did was almost shocking in a world where individuality is most often seen as something only achievable by limiting the user by what the manufacturer defines as boundaries.

Prologue has taken a diametrically opposite approach, and with the promise and delivery of a software development kit, anybody with sufficient knowledge could write his/her own oscillator module and effects. Naturally, there is always a limitation of the platform in terms of real-time processing power and memory. However, in all other respects the decision to offer such ability to the user suddenly meant that the only limitation was now the user's ability and imagination.

We are now some months after the release of the development kit, or SDK for short - hence one feels compelled to return to this topic at this point when theoretical promise of a creative possibility has become actual reality.

DirtBoxSynth have released not one, but a series of custom oscillators.

FMonsta1 & FMonsta2 have added wavetable and FM synthesis capabilities to the Prologue multi-engine, with eight instantly controllable parameters (via the copious offering of knobs). SUPAwave added PWM-based oscillator with phasing-like effects possible via two different half-waves. ORGANism has added an organ where the harmonics can be controlled in numerous ways, so as the authors called it, the oscillator is an organ with a twist - almost literally...

Custom digital effects have also seen the light of day, an autopanner, a high-gain distortion simulator AMPit, and a custom filter pack.

Why do the examples set by Korg and the set of custom OSCs and effects by DirtBoxSynth matter, beyond the obvious sonic aspects?

There is an age-old debate, often even battle, between advocates of closed and open platforms. In the area of computing, especially personal computers, this has raged on and on for decades.

In the creative sector, which is inevitably blending computing with the arts, Prologue is a very brave incarnation of the more open platform philosophy. Again, to stress, this is not a small manufacturer nor some enthusiast gizmo, like some open source initiatives that can deployed on a Raspberry Pi.

No, this is a flagship synthesizer keyboard from one of the 'Big Three' manufacturers... Instead of imposing on us the predefined limits of an instrument, it lets the techie musician loose in the world of sound generation and processing.

Also, it is a testament to the way in which modular design and software interface definition coupled with clear tooling enables the techie creators. Also, the application programmer's interface (API) is streamlined, clean and clear- which is always a crucial factor in enabling the third party developers. Another important aspect in an API definition is where the owner puts the abstraction boundary, misplacing this can over-complicate the interface (in one case) or not give enough power to the developer (in another case when it wants to stay very abstract as interface).

 The SDK is, as examples above prove, eminently usable and facilitates the creation and deployment of a range of different customised modules.

Interestingly, it remains, in this class of instruments, a unique experiment where the concept of loadable modules is not limited to the manufacturer's own offering (as, for example, plug-outs are).

Whilst some still see the solution to product differentiation as something achieved with highly restrictive approaches, Prologue manages to be a rather individual presence in the synth landscape - and it does this via a philosophy that hands the tools over to the techie musician...

The haunting of the new

Korg Prologue

The title of a classic Ray Bradbury short story, borrowed here temporarily, describes something that happened at the start of this year, and it shows how increasingly limited number of designers can think in novel ways when it comes to, paradoxically perhaps, re-visiting legacy technology of yesteryear. One manufacturer has proven yet again that when putting the musician at the centre of the design thinking, the result can be again a step evolution with something that nobody ever created in a hardware instrument.

We have seen years of retro synth offerings that were inundating the insatiable current market without offering much that the state-of-the-art technology could add as extras to our (home or other) studios of today.

When there was some innovation, usually, with extremely few exceptions, big and small names alike have come forward with instruments that, at best, had small variations on a theme, or added something that then stopped well short of what it could have become.

As usual, the beginning of the year and the NAMM show was expected to parade, even if in the preliminary states of not quite market-ready teasers, the latest and greatest offerings from music instrument makers.

Perhaps NAMM 2018 was one of the most polarised so far, in terms of the samey, endless variations on previous and current themes vs. the truly innovative ideas in the field of electronic instruments. As the ancient saying goes, light shines brighter in darkness - and this year there was one and only one step evolution that made the absence of innovation in the other products all the more evident.

Once again, countless new analogue variations, new modules, new re-spins (this is no longer a contradiction in terms, in the retro wave...) of the past, recent past and even present.

Innovation does not mean adding some extra polyphony or extra oscillators, an age-old matrix sequencer or whatever long pre-existed component to an existing design. Whatever name may stand behind it, let it be Moog or Dave Smith Instruments or Novation, this is simply a re-iteration (as illustrious as it may be) of existing technology.

Among the manufacturers that in the past months did not just regurgitate old ideas or just put new spin on essentially the same previously marketed instruments, Waldorf did stand out with the flagship Quantum. However, even this is merely bringing hardware instruments in line with software plugins that existed for decades.

Still, finally, a granular synthesis engine integrated with something else inside a tangible instrument... but no step evolution here, nothing that many others have not thought of before in terms of sound generation.

Waldorf Quantum

Going back a little bit, in the slightly less immediate past, Roland has thought of hybrid analogue / digital instruments, and produced a while ago the JD-Xa. However, apart from its frustrating user interface, the most frustrating is the stopping in conceptual thinking half-way through. It is a horrendously limited instrument compared to what the marriage of digital and analogue engines could have been.

Roland JD-Xa

Yamaha has produced the Genos, that in their breathtaking audacity (and by definition shocking  incorrectness) they dared to call a workstation. For many decades, the Korg M1 has defined and back then basically create the category - and even on a superficial scan of the Genos specs, it fails fundamentally and spectacularly.... and it is, at best, a sample-based arranger keyboard on steroids.

Yamaha Genos

Long gone are the days when Roland and Yamaha have produced step evolutions and presented entirely new ideas in usable instruments. Apart from endless re-spins of their glorious past (distant past...), what we see is the same synthesis engines being re-spun endlessly, in the best of cases, with some tweaks and expansions...

Even the Yamaha Montage was merely a beefed-up re-spin of their FM and sample-based AWM2 dual engine synths, with a user interface innovation. The brutal fact is that since FM synthesis (in the era-defining Yamaha DX7) and variphase engines (in the innovative Roland V-Synth), these manufacturers have not produced anything other than gradual increments of pre-existing technologies. Nor have many others...

The only step evolution produced and presented in mature form, winning also the "best in show" award at NAMM 2018, was the Korg Prologue. The major step is not because of them releasing yet another analogue instrument, not even because it is a hybrid digital + analogue synth.

There was a lot of discussion on its modulation capabilities with one LFO... which, incidentally, was also the case of several era-defining analogue instruments of the past... Somehow we have not seen legendary Prophet 5 synths tossed in dustbins by annoyed owners because of their single LFO :)

What those discussions and the subjective debates missed entirely, was what we could witness for the first time ever in a hardware synth... Apart from a hybrid architecture that did not stop half-way through the quest of capitalising on its possibilities (as Roland did with the aforementioned JD-Xa), it introduces user-definable, user-programmable digital oscillators and digital effects (!) in the multi-engine.

The ability to define whatever digital oscillator (also digital effects) with a software development kit (SDK) to be released in April, to have 16 of these user-definable units that operate seamlessly as any pre-defined oscillator in the Prologue synth, well, it is something we see for the first time in a full-fledged non-modular hybrid synth keyboard... and as the cliche goes, possibilities are really endless.

Korg Prologue versions

What it shows again, is that in a landscape dominated by the retro movement, somebody can come up with a brand new idea that instead of repeating the same old concepts, elevates them to entirely new heights.

It showed off the increasingly painful difference between thinking with purely marketing minds (let's re-spin a many decades old engine and violate even consecrated instrument category definitions with a huge price tag, one may guess what keyboard this applies to...) and with musician-oriented engineering minds.

Roland a while ago has introduced the plug-out concept, where essentially a software plugin could be loaded into their System-1 and System-8 keyboards. However, once again it fundamentally limited itself: the plug-outs are only done by the manufacturer, there is no open software development, and the plug-out slots are extremely limited anyway.

It was another example and another frustrating case when one gets close to an idea, completely misses the potential and with a very profit-oriented approach produces an almost-solution that does not have the musician and sound creator at its centre,  instead it firmly keeps the manufacturer's marketing thinking at its centre with an iron grip.

Even in this backward-looking market-driven world, Prologue, with the extremely few exceptions of some smaller manufacturers and some modular offerings, it shows there is hope. It happens to come from one of the big names, but it seems possible to come up with something new. As in the case of Kronos, the superlative workstation, this is again something that is bigger than the sum of its parts.

However, it is also symptomatic how devoid of innovation the entire landscape has become, where a few, increasingly few, new ideas stand out.

As in Ray Bradbury's wonderful tale, the newly (re-)created embodiments of old technology can have, in this case, exciting and entirely novel spirits haunting it in the best possible sense.

It also shows that innovation can be propelled by a user- and musician-centric approach, even if it now demands quite a technological skillset in order to capitalise on the offered potentials.

Hopefully, this spellbinding haunting of the new will continue in some, let it be small or super-large, names in the industry.

Clone wars and compromises

Behringer's Moog Model D clone

Last year's (in)famous announcement by Behringer, that it sets out to clone the legendary MiniMoog Model D, has driven social and specialist media into overdrive.

Purists, retro enthusiasts, gear heads, and countless other categories of people involved in any way in electronic instruments and electronic music have vented pros/cons (sometimes on the rational side) and everything from joy to outrage (on the emotional side).

This was followed by a "fake news" hiccup, when Behringer website announced a whole range of legendary synth clones, promptly taken off the website and, according to Behringer, it was merely a technical hiccup rather than an intentional marketing stunt.

Cue social and specialist media overdrive... again.

Now that we are counting the days until NAMM 2018, which undoubtedly will have its fair (or again overblown) share of retro technology in new robes as the nostalgy market is driving this insatiably, Behringer makes another announcement.

While the Model D clone is yet to turn up in shops, but pre-orders are made, the company announces not just an Oberheim OB-Xa clone, but also its estimated timeline.

Behringer UB-Xa clone of Oberheim OB-Xa

Cue social and specialist media overdrive... yet again. The OB-Xa's characteristic sound was present on myriad albums of artists ranging from Mike Oldfield to Jean-Michel Jarre to Depeche Mode and Gary Numan, to name just a few.

The repeated furore could be grouped essentially around the following topics:

• How dare they clone the legends, making considerably cheaper versions?
• The clones will not sound "good enough" compared to the originals
• The quality will be worse compared to the originals.

Well, while everything in life is a compromise, above main threads have one huge elephant in the room, as uncomfortable it may be.

The price point, objectively, to anyone in the electronics business who is not subjectively swayed by nostalgia, is not a scandalous one for Behringer, it is actually a scandalous one for the likes of Moog.

The production of Model D in today's world, even with using the retro components that were reportedly in short supply (if we believe the classic marketing stunt), is a fraction of what it was back then.

The price point, regardless of individual synth musicians' pocket sizes (and the snobbish threads that ensued due to this, discussing affordability and who would spend what on what), is an unrealistic one - the real central driver is the name, the legend and the emotional capital factored into it. Full stop.

The "good enough" sound is a perhaps eternal topic. Again, it comes down to motivations, priorities and... compromises.

Even if the clones approximate the originals, they are expected to be "better" than virtual analogue reincarnations of the originals. The elusive (and often subjective) difference may not matter in the final mix, and would not be (even in case of virtual analogue) detectable by vast numbers of people listening to the final mix on whatever sound equipment they have.

However, this just brings the traditional battle between virtual analogue and true analogue to another level, it is a battle between hearing the differences between true analogue original and clone.

The original and legendary Oberheim OB-Xa

Naturally, as with all such discussions, the central question remains whether the certain differences matter or not to the audience.

Famously, when Daft Punk recorded a track's narration with three different microphones belonging to three different eras talked about in the track, somebody asked: who will hear the difference? The sound engineer replied: Daft Punk will.

But then the big question is, if only the artist hears it, does it matter... and then we land in a stormy sea of heated debates that ultimately start regurgitating tenets of subjective vs. objective reality from age-old philosophy trends.

Regarding compromise, a certain difference then becomes also a matter of price difference vs. audible difference. This then becomes even more personal and tuned to the specifics of the music project. Therefore generalising takes on this lose all meaning, no matter how purists start sizzling in social media threads.

The quality point is also a self-defeating one. Sure, fundamentally it has to be "decent". Even at the price point of the clones, nobody wants it to fall apart within months or a few years. Considering how latest greatest offering from some of the biggest names is suffering of frankly outrageous quality issues nowadays, and there is a clear trend toward the negative, the picture is again a bit foggy.

A lot of anger was vented in threads about Behringer quality, endless sarcastic memes and posts circulated for months - but again the authors miss the central point.

Exactly as a hand-stitched leather seat in an Aston Martin does not alter the engine performance and "oomph" we feel driving it, in the same way the price-inflating claims of Moog about lovingly and individually hand-crafted parts do not alter the sound.

They may contribute to an overall feel of uniqueness and "made just for you" with a serial number we end up framing on the wall, but... the central logical phallacy in such takes is that the overall feel is not in any way related to the specific detail or difference in detail that is being argued.

It is impossible, due to human nature, to avoid such phallacies and their pitfalls when it comes to these topics. Especially when many look at their synths as things that define them as musicians instead of mere tools in their creative work.

However all purist thinking is by definition a deplorably self-limiting one. It is not a problem that one ends up limiting one's own choices (including the creative ones), but it is also human nature that the same psychology makes its possessor feel a desperate need to tell others to have the same self-limiting approaches to their creative processes and choices.

So instead, let's herald the superb OB-Xa reincarnation, if Behringer does produce it (frankly, credibility has taken a huge beating lately and some marketing or involuntary actions backfired).

As with the Model D clone, the UB-Xa (as it will be called) will naturally find its way into categories of sound designers and musicians' work places as Model D clone and virtual analogue imitations of true analogue originals have.

Everything is a compromise, and all synths are instruments - mere instruments in realising an imagined sound world.

How that instrument is used and whether it is "good enough" is down to, and only to, that creative musician.

As soon as the instrument becomes a tool for self-definition and therefore inevitably snobbery, it and its discussions are dead ends for the purists.

Deep Mind to the 12th power

Screengrab from Behringer teaser video No. 5

A slight detour into gearheads' territory, as such news don't come around very often.

In 2014, originally based on an interview in Amazona.de, rumours started about Behringer working on an analogue synth.

In 2015, there have been wonderings and wanderings on forums, whether the plans are still "on" or it's all been forgotten.

Well, mid-2016 it is all reality. Cue the to-be-released DeepMind12 analogue splendour...

Whopping 12 voices in an analogue synth, which seems also aided, even augmented according to first impressions (see 5th teaser video below), by digital effects.

So after many years of mixing desks and other audio gizmos of quite respectable caliber, now a whopping synth beast is in the making in their product portfolio.

It appears to have arpeggiator and undoubtedly some more digital control 'oomph', too - if they bolted onto it such a display and digital effects module... Step sequencing please? Pretty please? :)

It will be presented in October it seems, and judging from the videos, it is claimed to have a very "organic" feel when played.

So apart from gearhead enthusiasm, it is yet another "retro" synth beast and it will be interesting to see price point and features compared to e.g. Korg current offering.

The 5 teaser videos so far released by Behringer are below:

1.

2.

3.

4. 

5.

Resurrection of an Analogue

Photo: Engadget

Klaus Schulze (in)famously entitled one of his 1980s tracks Death of an Analogue... whilst entirely switched to digital gear, for a while at least... before reversed the admittedly overdone hasty switch-over...

In recent years we have seen a series of analogue revivals, after a long analogue modelling era... Most big names, just to think of Korg and Roland, have released "true" analogue synths and/or revived classics.

Now Moog, as also presented at the recent Moogfest, have revived the legendary Minimoog Model D. Well, actually the first ever Minimoog model that has seen the light of day as far as the public is concerned (previous models were prototypes).

Whilst it retains the original circuitry, it has a few additions like dedicated LFO and, of course, MIDI.

Aside from the news of the most recent resurrection of a true classic, on the surface one may feel that the rapid and increasing analogue revival trend is somehow the opposite of an expected continuous innovation in the field of electronic instruments...

As someone commented on a MusicRadar article, it is the pinnacle of irony how some artists and producers rave about their love for the vintage analogue sound, whilst they compress the life out of the music material...

However, this clash of worlds is not new by any means. There will be nostalgic adventures in what represents the past for many, there will be excesses and mistaken philosophies in using the vintage classics or the brand new 'true' analogue beasts.

As long as the market does not drive the manufacturers to a point where they scale back investment in innovation, while chasing the trend-guaranteed quick buck with their resurrected classics, nor do we increasingly define (as annoyingly certain camps do) the most here-and-now sound as the one based on the use of retro gear, it's fine...

Let's not forget that there have also been hundreds, if not thousands, of man-years of effort invested into the digital modelling of the vintage classics, whether in the form of HW or SW products - so in that sense, perhaps with different affordability in some cases, the resurrection of the 'real' things seems to make more sense... and one hopes that the research & development efforts can then go into the new innovative gear rather...

Surely, some riding the trend hastily and opportunistically get close to the point of heralding the Death of a Digital in a (misconceived) world where just using the vintage classics is automatically chic... but once the initial overshoots of the system settle, even in the case of this new-by-revival movement, we shall get the real gems, as always...