PAUL NAGLE: Virtual Analogue Synths — Inspiring The Same Affection As Analogue Counterpart?

Can a virtual analogue synth inspire the same affection as its genuine analogue counterpart? Paul Nagle thinks not...

Do you remember how good Jurassic Park looked when it was first released? The animation seemed incredible and realistic. Yet, only a few years later, dramatic improvements in computer‑generated imagery have rendered those dinosaurs far less believable. We've simply got used to better. I think there are interesting parallels here with the computer modelling techniques that give life to virtual analogue synthesizers.

To understand how to simulate an analogue synthesizer is to know what makes such an instrument so revered in the first place. Old synths can cost an arm and a leg. Can that be all down to hype or a collector's desire to own something rare, or is there another answer? Does the sound of a Minimoog really 'cost in' against what you have to pay for one these days? And wouldn't a Nord Lead do the job just as well? The answer, I think, lies in something that might seem out of place in a music technology magazine. It's love.

Calm down. I'm not talking love in the late‑night Channel 5 sense. This is far more wholesome: a musician's love for his or her instrument. Consider what makes any instrument special to its owner. Affection isn't generated purely by looks, and a list of functions as long as your arm won't guarantee a lasting relationship. What counts first and foremost is individuality, the feeling that you own something unique. We are far from the day when any DSP‑generated 'analogue' will inspire the passion felt by devotees of the Minimoog, the Yamaha CS80 or the Roland Jupiter 8. My point is not that these instruments represent the best that analogue synthesis ever offered, merely that each has its own personality. Maybe the gentle ageing of their circuits suggests mortality, making them seem more truly alive? And if sometimes they aren't so reliable, we forgive them like a faithful old dog that is sick on the carpet.

Now think of a DSP‑generated instrument. Imagine losing or breaking your Korg MS2000. What would you do? Simply replace it with another. Feed it the same data, and its processor will behave precisely as your original did. Furthermore, it will do so every day, for every hour of that day. It's utterly disposable in that sense. Compare this with components on a circuit board, each producing subtly fluctuating voltages — the life‑blood of an analogue synth. Lose your Minimoog and any replacement will sound different. Playing an analogue synth is like interacting with something organic; your own style and the synth's qualities combine to create something magical and personal. I realise that, in a purely digital instrument, you have the advantage of precision and repeatability every time, but in musical terms, exact repetition wears thin quite quickly.

If you think this is just a thinly‑disguised rant about analogue and digital, relax. I haven't forgotten that there were some truly awful analogue synthesizers too. I use analogue, virtual analogue and digital gear myself, and they complement each other. The frostiness of instruments such as Waldorf's Microwave XT or Kawai's K5000 can be a refreshing counterpoint to a fuzzy ARP Odyssey solo. So I admit that all instruments have their own strengths. It's just that a computer in analogue clothing is still at the 'early dinosaur CGI' stage for me.

So if an Access Virus or a Novation Supernova will never fully replace analogue, what's the point in trying? Genuine analogue synthesizers are thriving today, with more new models hitting the market than for years. So why emulate when you can have the brand‑new real thing? Actually, I think the virtual analogues are already carving out their own territory. They just need to admit it. Just look at the amazing things you can do with a Nord Modular. I think the quest should be to make all DSP‑based synths more interesting and subtle, regardless of the type of synthesis.

How's this for a starter: why not offer a 'personal customisation algorithm' for the next generation of DSP synths, that would ape natural/analogue behaviour? Perhaps it could incorporate some personal data too, altering the characteristics and behaviour of future calculations, in tiny ways, either based on how long the synth had been switched on, or how long it had 'lived'. This could even prove a useful security feature, stamping a synth with unique references to its owner.

Am I dreaming? Wouldn't any sensible manufacturer throw up their hands in horror at the idea? Imagine, each instrument 'bonding' with its owner and then sounding slightly different afterwards? Goodness, people might actually keep their synths, rather than throwing them out as soon as the next (improved) model appears!

But just imagine how much more seriously you'd take your synth if it were truly irreplaceable.

If you'd like to air your views in this column, please send your ideas to: Sounding Off, Sound On Sound, Media House, Trafalgar Way, Bar Hill, Cambridge, CB3 8SQ, UK. Any comments on the contents of previous columns are also welcome, and should be sent to the Editor at the same address.

E soundingoff@soundonsound.com