I am a bonifide and proud analog snob, use all analog instruments, tape, effects, and only use converters for reverbs, even those I process with lots of analog gear, and the DX7 is the ugliest of all digital to me. I HATE the DX7 to death, have never heard anything good come out of one.
I still hate it, and do not like workstation keyboards, but honestly, Herbie can make anything sound amazing. The only DX7 I have ever liked:
Thanks for that.
Wah Wah Watson is a Motown legend. And Darryl Jones has been holding it down for ages. But here is the original track w/Sax http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHpFW0dtW2M
But really, the DX7 Herb? Didn’t know he went that way. (haha just kidding).
He could have done better and gotten a high five from me had he used an Oberheim Matrix 12 or 6 instead. But I don’t think he needs a high five from me.
Question for unfiltered37… do the tape tracking lines at the bottom make it any more analog? : )
Those are simulated tape tracking lines. Purpose defeating technology. Digital was just “too clean” 
The original track (not live) was on Man Child I believe, and did not have DX7 or anything digital. The vid I posted was obviously from the 80’s or maybe (not likely) early 90’s. So it was videotape. I have always hated digital keyboards, they irritate me to listen to them, even when great musicians like Keith Emerson play them. I had always thought the string synths that Herbie used in the 80’s like on Rockit were analog, because they actually sound good, but turns out Herbie is just THAT good. I saw him play an Oasys I think in this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ASTMFN-h4&feature=related
Even though the patch is cheesy, he makes it work very well. But I never thought I could actually not vomit when hearing a DX7. He still plays a Rhodes, and I am sure other vintage stuff, but he prefers digital synths. Probably one of the very few guys, to me at least, where the instrument doesn’t even matter. I would like so much to see him bring back the ARP Odyssey/Rhodes/Clavinet setup which made his fusion sh*t famous. I bet in an alternate universe, ARP survived, and Alan Pearlman made an Odyssey for the 21st century.
Just found this:
Thanks for the link. I enjoyed that as well.
Regarding the DX7, I have to say I like it. I’ve had one for three or four years now, and it’s under-rated. There are things you can do with it that basically no-one in the 80s ever did. I play it in edit mode and adjust parameters as I play. Of course it doesn’t exactly lend itself to tweaking, but it’s possible.
Llanfairfechan, on my website (number 22 in the music player), was a piece done entirely with the DX7 in edit mode. Llanfairfechan is a place on the North Wales coast, and I wanted to get the glassy quality of shallow water in sunlight. For me, the DX7 got that in a way an analogue synth wouldn’t.
I also use the TX81Z, which is also interesting in edit mode. On Late Afternoon Snow (number 37 in the player) I used the TX to get the relatively warm snowfall (compared with the more intense cold of the wind and the overall temperature) and an ARP Axxe provided the wind and the darkness - a slight reversal of conventional wisdom on warm' and cold’ with digital and analogue, though of course the whole scene is pretty chilly.
BTW Gilli (number 31 in the player) is DX7 and Moog Voyager.
I hated the DX7 from the first moment I heard it all those years ago. However I learned recently that Brian Eno used mainly a DX7 on his brilliant Apollo album. It just goes to show once again, it’s not the technology that counts, it’s how you use it !
^^^ i was just going to mention Eno and how much he uses his dx7.
i actually got to play a dx7 for the first time the other day. i really didnt know what to expect, but i was really impressed. of course if you stick to the cheesy presets you wont find anything useful but after a few minutes of tweaking some pretty incredible things started to happen
this is another dx track (i believe everything except the drums are dx7) http://youtu.be/jXzggiUalxo
Mentioning tweaking the dx7 reminded me of a funny story about a similar keyboard, the casio CZ-3000, my first “real” synth. I got it from a college roommate who traded me for a jacket or something. Extremely cheesy, with a seemingly endless number of indecipherable parameters.
Anyway, it broke on me, so I took it apart, and couldn’t get it working. So after a night of partying, we get back to my place, and my friend who was wasted wanted to fire it up. I told him not to even try plugging it in, it would electrocute him. Alcohol being a great catalyst for decision making, he pressed the dangling power button, and took his hand away quickly, but you could see a blue arc about 4 inches long from his finger to the button. Gave him quite a buzz if he didn’t have one already, but I swear to god, it powered up for the first time in weeks, and worked perfectly until I threw it away a few years later.
I had the same synth over at my friends house, who were in a rock band. They called me one night and said “we have a special guest coming over tonight, you should come over.” Intrigued, I went over there, and turns out the bass player/singer’s girlfriend was friends with Robert Mercurio, the bass player from Galactic, which is a pretty big New Orleans funk band, for those who haven’t heard of them. So after a few bong hits, they casually suggested to him that they had instruments setup in their band room and we should all jam. So I fired up the Casio, and like always, I blindly tweaked the synth, pressing buttons I had no idea the functionality of, until I got a sound I had never come close to, and never did. It was actually amazing sounding. So we start jamming, and all these wicked sounds are coming out of the thing. And when we stopped playing, all Robert had to say was, “whoa, those keys are fucking awesome!” I was psyched, but the problem was, my friends had just invited me over as an afterthought, and they were hoping to impress him, so when he didn’t say a word about their guitar/drumming, they were not happy with me for a long while after, and we ended up actually despising each other.
great story unfiltered37! haha! when accidental musical magic ceases to exist for me, I’m duct-taping the garden hose to my 62 Ford Galaxie’s tail, and taking a nap!
I loved the DX-7. Yamaha did a great service by making vintage analogs really affordable 
From a guy with more analog than digital here.
I have no problem with analog or digital gear. They are different. As a Guitar is different from a wood wind. They are both tools and instruments. It would probably amaze many analog snobs to know how much of the stuff they think is analog was actually done with digital instruments. (And Vise-versa.)
Yeah, listening to the same bands use the same factory presets song after song get’s old and cliche very fast. {I think Boston never changed a tone control on any guitar, bass or amp or knew that drawbars on the organ moved.) But those who actually learned their instruments and wrote and played their own patches have made some phenomemal sounds.
Saying you HATE EVERYTHING from any DX7 is like saying you hate everything from a Slim Phatty. It only shows a closed mindedness that will only serve to constrain creativity and growth. But, to each their own, I guess.
I agree with you in part, but from my experience, I have seen that good analog is better than any digital. Yes, that’s a blanket statement, and I have heard good digital that I liked, and even liked how Herbie used the DX7. But that’s Herbie Hancock, not me. There are many factors at play here, not the least of which are budget, personal preference, and style. But if you ask anyone worth their salt if a digital clavinet or moog sample sounds as good as the real thing, they know for a fact its not. The model D, as well as the Neve 1073, LA-2A, Gates STA-level, are analog , (mostly) discrete designs, which in most people’s opinion, is the very best electronic formula for audio quality.
I have heard emulations for all of these, but they without a doubt do not hold a candle to the real thing. The highest sample rate in the world is not a drop in the bucket compared to infinite resolution. I use a 1" 8 track tape machine, which is just about the highest quality multitrack analog you can get, other than the absurd 2" 8 track (called Ultimate Analog, which does not sound as good in my opinion because there is little to no saturation). I have not heard a digital format that can hang, and I don’t think there ever will be, because no one will spend the R&D time and money to accurately duplicate analog tape, especially when 16 bit 44.1k is considered good enough. UAD has Studer and Ampex ATR plug ins that “sound like” tape, but the feeling is just not there, and the ear fatigue is way more. People are so used to listening to digital audio, that they don’t understand how good music can sound and how long you can listen to it without getting tired. Ever wondered why you can sit though an entire loud concert and enjoy every minute, but get sick of music after listening to a couple MP3s? Sound is vibration, which not only affects the ears, but also every cell in your body. If they made fake meat out of Styrofoam that tasted exactly like the real thing, would we eat it? No because the body knows, even if the tongue doesn’t.
Music to me is very similar to food, and I stay away from artificial ingredients that my body does not like, and even though a Twinkie can be satisfying if you are starving, you don’t want to make it part of your diet if you can help it. I realize many can’t help it, but if you can, avoid them.
Digital music is in most ways better than, but also a lot like the cassette tape, which is deemed "good enough" for the public, but far from optimal. As we all know, digital music is a chopping, quantizing, and reconstructing medium, whereas high quality tape is simply storage of the intact electronic signal. When I record my Model D to tape and play it back, what I am hearing IS the Model D, not just an accurate representation.
A while ago, a guy came to fix my fridge. He came into my studio, and didn’t understand why I had so many keyboards. He said “check this out, I can get all those sounds just on my IPhone” and showed me all these music apps. He claimed that his Moog emulators were just as good as the real thing. Trying not to laugh, I fired up my Mini, played a few notes, and basically floored him.
That said, digital is responsible for a lot of great ideas from great musicians being recorded and distributed, but if you won’t settle for anything but the best, which I assume if you’re into Moog gear, digital won’t cut it.
I like this, I’m not sure that I agree, but it’s an interesting notion.
I hope you have your gear insured - sounds to me like this guy was scoping out your studio to see if it was worth breaking into! I hope this isn’t the case, but just because I’m not paranoid doesn’t mean that everyone isn’t out to get me…
16bit 44.1Khz might be good enough for most folks. I use 24bit 192Khz. I no longer miss my tape machine. I still have one 1/4" half track for using as an effect, but it is no longer my mastering deck. And it really doesn’t matter if you go all analog. You will be the only one who hears the differance (If any) as you can not distribute on tape anymore. (Has anyone released on RTR tape in the last 30 years?) In order for it to be heard, it is going to go out as: 1. Cassette tape- pretty poor option even with the best of tape and machines.
2. MP3-Barely better than a standard cassette tape. 3. CD-at 24bit 44.1Khz good enough for the masses and way better than an mp3. 4. Vinyl-even with it’s inherant problems, records are still my favorite way to listen to music. it has never gone away, it has been plugging away in the background. But the loss of low freq response and the need of the RIAA curve in the preamp mean it still isn’t a true representation of the original.
5.-FLAC or other lossless digital format. HUGE files to DL, but at 24bit 192Khz maybe a few people in the world could pick it out from a 30IPS master in a blind listen. What I hear in my studio monitors is the sound my synths make. It isn’t any different from the live feed going in or the reproducer coming out. And the best thing about all that is, so much of what I can hear in the control room is going to be completely lost by the system that 99.9% of the world is going to listen to the music on. The rabbit hole of that .1% isn’t worth the investment. Law of diminishing returns has hit a brick wall limiter long before that point.
And all that cool old analog gear, mics, processors and consoles are (GASP) coloring the actual original sound! Just becuase it is ‘pleasing’ and what many are used to hearing, doesn’t mean it is better or clearer or more accurate.
But I love the analog purists out there. They keep the prices of truly outstanding digital instruments low. (And I don’t buy a digital machine to emulate an older analog machine. I buy it for the sounds that the older analog machine can not do.) In the analog domain, it takes nearly 22 MU spaces of modular to do one single decent 2 operator through zero voice. And nearly 10,000 USD to buy. It doesn’t track well and isn’t stable. A DX7 can blow that analog attempt at FM synthesis away at 300 USD and be polyphonic at the same time. Do I want my digital synth to sound like a Mini D or ARP? No. Can my MINI D or ARP sound like my digitals? No. A Rhodes can’t sound like a Bosendorfer, either.
I was using 192/24 bit when I used Logic for recording, and still use 96k/24 bit for reverbs, but only because I can’t afford a plate reverb or a chamber, and springs are not easy to get realistic sounds, but cool on some stuff. At 24 bit, the sample rate, as long as its above 44.1, is pretty negligible, but higher quality nonetheless.
As I said, digital is the only option for many, and the convenience, editing, etc. are invaluable. I don’t use analog reverbs because they are impractical, but would if I had an unlimited budget. And I realize tape is not practical for many, so thank god for digital, but at the same time, the very best of the best is high quality analog tape and other analog gear. I am an analog snob only because I had the budget to be, so I’m not knocking digital. But if you have the money, I highly recommend getting a wide track Studer, Ampex, 3m (!), MCI, or Otari machine, especially if you use analog synths, the difference is not subtle.
As far as distribution, I have (reluctantly) used mp3 and CD, but only convert the very final mix after recorded, mixed, and mastered to tape. I have found that using the fewest converters on a track as possible allow for a much better product. The better quality the individual tracks, the better the mix. Listening to classic records on CD to my ears sounds better, albeit less clear than most modern albums.
I have not delved into vinyl, but know of a mastering studio in New York that does all analog presses, and hope to use them in the future. (most modern vinyl is cut from a digital master, unless the firm has a specially made tape machine with a preview head).
Listen to Dap Tone records, which are all analog, but even as MP3’s sound very cool and retro, and though kinda lo-fi, still a pleasure to hear.
The way I think of it, is that the Model D’s sound begins as just an electronic signal, unlike guitars, pianos, electric pianos, drums, digital synths, etc. When you record to high quality tape, yes the format is not perfect, and has EQ curves, bias, noise, hiss, etc. but these are all negligible with wide tracks, high quality electronics, and modern loud tape like Quantegy GP9. And yes, the signal is converted to magnetism, but from what I understand, electricity and magnetism are pretty much the same thing or at least are perfectly interchangeable. So the signal going into and coming out of the machine is virtually identical. It’s almost like a time-delayed wire from the instrument to the speakers. A/D conversion doesn’t just change the signal, it basically destroys it then reconstructs it. The way I see it, conversion is like taking a digital picture of an image, while tape is like looking at the real image in a (slightly dirty) mirror. But it all basically boils down to sound, and more importantly feeling and ear fatigue, which are subjective. If digital had not come along, I would posit that music would sound unbelievably better not just than today’s music, but better than anything in the past, and tape machines would allow easy editing through automatic splicers, like on some VTR machines from the 80’s. Or else a new analog format like analog Laserdisc would be the standard.
Has anyone heard an analog Laserdisc? I’m curious how it sounds.
BTW, I think digital is just as good as analog at conveying an idea through music, like most pop and lyrical music. When you hear a traditional “song” that is trying to impart a feeling through mainly lyrics with music as an afterthought, digital is very good at getting it across. But I am an instrumental musician, and what I am trying to do is to not only convey a feeling, but just as importantly I want listeners including myself to hear the beauty of the instruments I play like the minimoog and drums (which I tune, mic, and process meticulously), so for me tape is the only medium that will do. So the purpose of your music is a huge part in the analog vs. digital debate.
All this reminds me of exactly how it was when analog synthesizers first appeared. It was all “oh it’s ok for pop, but it’s not real music, is it?” And now we have “Oh, digital’s ok for pop, but it’s not real like analogue, is it?”
I’ve been here before and the argument didn’t impress me last time.
I’m an instrumental musician as well. And so is Brian Eno, who was mentioned by someone earlier. It amuses me that our music doesn’t count because you’ve already decided it mustn’t be any good because we sometimes use digital instruments. I’m certainly not going to argue about that. I let my music state the point, and I imagine Eno does the same. But this is one of the many times I wonder why I bother with forums.
Don’t be discouraged Sweep!
I have been online for a while now and as my interests are wide, varied and prone to change focus like the wind changes direction, I have been on many different online forums, from computer graphics to drawing, art, photography and of course, music forums. Variations of these differences of ideas & opinions are as ubiquitous as the topics and themes they cover, it’s what makes the world intereesting because, let’s face it, if we all thought exactly the same things would be not only dull, but potentially catastrophically stagnant!
I rekon most of the time we bother with forums because 99% of the time we can resource & share good information from others with experience that differs from ours, be inspired, have a laugh and yes, take part in daft philosophical and entirely subjective discussions like this particular one…
I believe it’s important to take everything (including my own opinions) with a grain of salt, it helps me digest concepts that differ from my own mind set. Ocassionally I’m even surprised to find that same aforementioned mind set changing! Of course sometimes I just read what is being written, grin, shake my head and move to the next topic.
In the case of brand x is better than brand y (which is basically what these type of discussions can be distilled down to) however, a consensus will probably never be reached!
There is so much technically wrong with what you’ve written above it’s impossible to know where to begin, but you’re incorrect on almost all counts. Like Sweep I wonder why I bother with this forum sometimes. If you don’t like digital synths or digital recording that’s fine, just don’t try and justify it with some pseudo physics that it’s better for the human ear or something.
There must be a lot of music you miss out on as it only comes out on CD. Maybe that makes it easier for you to dismiss artists like Brian Eno who uses numerous DX7s. Unlike most of us he has the money to do what you do. He chooses not to. Is he less of an artist than you because he’s chosen a different path? That’s pretty arrogant if you actually think that.
“from what I understand, electricity and magnetism are pretty much the same thing or at least are perfectly interchangeable. So the signal going into and coming out of the machine is virtually identical.”
Nope. What ends up on tape is very far from what you put into the machine. Why do you think we spent so much time adjusting things like bias, noise reduction tracking, demagging the heads etc. in the first place? Because we were fighting the imperfections of the medium. There’s still conversion going on, albeit within the analogue domain.
Just for the record I have worked in professional broadcast television for 23 years. I’ve done my rounds with many tape formats for vision and audio from analogue through to the current digital HD tape formats (and now often tapeless too). I’ve done tape splicing. I’ve aligned multitrack heads, I’ve adjusted bias currents. I’ve done all that. It was crap.
I know a bit about generation loss when making analogue copies too, because we were always fighting it until digital came along. As soon as you made a copy it wasn’t as good as the original, and you knew that copy would end being copied itself before going halfway round the world to be copied again - all in the analogue domain. HF loss, introduction of noise and the probability that at the other end the machines used wouldn’t be aligned properly or the right EQ and noise reduction used.
Sure, digital could be better than CD - sadly those better resolution formats got killed by poor marketing, indifference and ultimatey downloads. Mp3s sound awful but people don’t care, but that’s another thread. I’m not going to diginify you ridiculous comments about digital being good enough for pop, as it’s funny how some of the first to embrace digital audio were classical labels.
To Sweep: please stay. If Bob Moog had applied the kind of thinking expressed in this thread in his era he wouldn’t have made the Moog synths in the first place, as they’re not real instruments are they? Luckily he had vision to push forward an instrument unpopular in many quarters. He didn’t have a closed, didactic mind. Let this forum keep reflecting that.
It doesn’t matter how much EQing, bias, etc. is going on, even with cassette tape, there is infinitely more signal stored to the medium than any digital system. Now I understand that doesn’t mean the quality is better, but with the modern tape machines like the Studer a827, and Otari MTR 90 with servo-controlled transports and extremly high quality electronic signal path, if they are aligned properly, it actually does mean the quality is better.
But besides technical aspects, I have a very high quality machine with wide tracks, and I can tell without a doubt, it sounds better than any digital format I have heard, and I can listen to the same song over and over when mixing without tiring my ears out. That may not appeal to all, but it is invaluable to me. I understand the format is, compared to DAW’s, extremely difficult to maintain and expensive, and that is why most are turned off. But honestly, convenience has almost always meant lower sound quality. Even the modern analog machines do not sound as warm as the old Ampex 351’s, but are far more transparent and reliable. The analog format was just reaching it’s peak when digital came along, so the technology wasn’t quite what it could have been, but the modern machines made in the mid-90’s were very reliable and still sounded very good.
Digital is nothing more than a means to an end, computers weren’t created for music, they just happen to be convenient and allow for easy editing and storage, so it was adopted by the masses. But almost every high end professional studio out there still has an analog machine that they have kept immaculate. The reason being is that the sound quality is unmatched. And they all have a Pro Tools rig as well, because of the convenience and standard, but any good producer, engineer or musician will choose the analog format 9 times out of 10 if possible for the type of project, even with it’s imperfections.
You say that with analog, conversion is happening and you equate it with A/D conversion, but we all know that is not close to being the same. Electricity and magnetism are both continuous, infinite resolution entities, which are converted to each other, yes, but with a good machine, at very little detriment to the signal. With digital, there is no signal any more, it is just a picture of the signal that reconstituted back into a “beleievable” or “acceptable” “analog” signal. It’s like eating a chicken mcnugget, it may taste like chicken, but really it is real chicken ground down to a pulp, mixed with artificial additives, and reformed back into what looks vaguely like a piece of chicken. But people still eat it large numbers, maybe even more than real chicken. The public always knows best, right?
Whatever works for you, I encourage you to use it, but if you spend tens of thousands of dollars on analog gear, I recommend highly the purchase of a modern wide track machine, that is all I am saying. To take offense at a recommendation is juvenile.